If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(WSMV Nashville)   Senator Campfield posted a photo that has been circulating on many gun rights websites, showing what is titled as an "assault pressure cooker" and includes labels such as "tactical pistol grip" and "can cook for hours without reloading"   (wsmv.com) divider line 270
    More: Dumbass, Campfield, Channel 4 News, assault pressure cooker, Sandy Hook Elementary School, senator  
•       •       •

3705 clicks; posted to Politics » on 23 Apr 2013 at 10:11 AM (52 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



270 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread
 
2013-04-23 08:35:29 AM
TN Senator be trollin.

While this would have been benign and un-newsworthy if it had been posted by a regular Joe, it's not a smart move to do shiat like this when you're a Senator.  Keep it classy, guy.  Stick to sending dick picks to your mistresses like everyone else in government.
 
2013-04-23 08:43:22 AM

Farce-Side: TN Senator be trollin.

While this would have been benign and un-newsworthy if it had been posted by a regular Joe, it's not a smart move to do shiat like this when you're a Senator.  Keep it classy, guy.  Stick to sending dick picks to your mistresses like everyone else in government.


Couldn't have said it better.
 
2013-04-23 09:01:10 AM
I hadn't seen the photo before, and the one in TFA is kind of small, so here ya go:
25.media.tumblr.com
 
2013-04-23 09:04:29 AM
I have to admit, my grandmother's made some pot roasts in her pressure cooker that could kill scores of people.
 
vpb [TotalFark]
2013-04-23 09:12:02 AM
Gun nuts take that "we can't have gun control because other things kill people too" argument seriously.
I don't think it's trolling.
 
2013-04-23 09:22:13 AM

vpb: Gun nuts take that "we can't have gun control because other things kill people too" argument seriously.
I don't think it's trolling.


I think it's a quick and easy "out" to ignore the conversation, and you're right that it's not trolling. I think they legitimately believe there is no reason to consider guns any differently from any other object, and there is no reason to even track or acknowledge crimes done with guns. After all, crime's crime and furthermore suchas
 
2013-04-23 09:55:44 AM
Fortunately, Senator Campfield, in whose district I grew up many moons ago, will not be around to troll us after the next election.  He'll be bankrolled out of office.
 
2013-04-23 10:01:04 AM
Campfield added he didn't think his blog post wasn't insensitive and said that "it just shows the hypocrisy of the left."

Yeah, okay. You just keep on with the classy there, Stacy.
 
2013-04-23 10:13:48 AM
Well, that sure shoots the "guns are the only way to kill people" argument -- you know, the one that the gun-control advocates base their entire argument on -- right in the ass.
 
2013-04-23 10:14:27 AM

LasersHurt: I think it's a quick and easy "out" to ignore the conversation, and you're right that it's not trolling. I think they legitimately believe there is no reason to consider guns any differently from any other object, and there is no reason to even track or acknowledge crimes done with guns. After all, crime's crime and furthermore suchas


Crime. Boy, I don't know.
 
2013-04-23 10:14:53 AM
Republican state senator from a Southern state?  Check.
Stupid moronic comment coming from said senator?  Check
Refusal to apologize for stupid moronic comment?  Check

Must be a day ending in a y.
 
2013-04-23 10:15:11 AM
Que partisan bickering.
 
2013-04-23 10:15:33 AM
Is the senator making a toung in cheeck critique of gun laws, that they do not address what makes the gun dangerous? Perhaps we should do what he wants and make bullets illegal instead.
 
2013-04-23 10:16:33 AM

markfara: Well, that sure shoots the "guns are the only way to kill people" argument -- you know, the one that the gun-control advocates base their entire argument on -- right in the ass.


What does it do for the argument that guns are only designed for killing? Because that's normally the one used, not the one you pulled out of your ass.
 
2013-04-23 10:17:41 AM
Stay classy, GOP er, individual working independently outside of Party lines.
 
2013-04-23 10:18:57 AM

KittyGlitterSparkles: Que partisan bickering.


Que?

www.virginmedia.com
 
2013-04-23 10:19:14 AM
As long as they want to defend my right to bear a pressure cooker, they can derp all they want.

/from my cold, dead hands
 
2013-04-23 10:19:21 AM

CPennypacker: Is the senator making a toung in cheeck critique of gun laws, that they do not address what makes the gun dangerous? Perhaps we should do what he wants and make bullets illegal instead.


Pointing out that a position is intensly stupid in addition to being an infringement of fundamental rights is not an endorsement of a less intensely stupid form of the same infringement.
 
2013-04-23 10:19:26 AM

vpb: Gun nuts take that "we can't have gun control because other things kill people too" argument seriously.
I don't think it's trolling.


During the State of the Union speech back in January, didn't President Obama say "if we can do anything to protect just one child, shouldn't we do it?" Sure. A child was killed by a pressure cooker. Regulate! It's not trolling, it's using Obama's manipulative tactics against him.
 
2013-04-23 10:20:59 AM

optimistic_cynic: What does it do for the argument that guns are only designed for killing? Because that's normally the one used, not the one you pulled out of your ass.


Several guns are designed for competition shooting, and not for actual killing.  It just so happens that they are also very good for killing, but cost hundreds to sometimes thousands of dollars more than another gun designed only for killing.
 
2013-04-23 10:21:11 AM
you know what's weird about the word queue

queueueueueueueueueueueueueueueue would be pronounced the same
 
2013-04-23 10:21:35 AM

TerminalEchoes: vpb: Gun nuts take that "we can't have gun control because other things kill people too" argument seriously.
I don't think it's trolling.

During the State of the Union speech back in January, didn't President Obama say "if we can do anything to protect just one child, shouldn't we do it?" Sure. A child was killed by a pressure cooker. Regulate! It's not trolling, it's using Obama's manipulative tactics against him.


Run with that. Seriously, keep repeating it. Regulating guns in response to gun violence is the exact same thing as regulating pressure cookers in response to the Boston bombings. Always say that. People will respect you.
 
2013-04-23 10:21:36 AM

Ned Stark: CPennypacker: Is the senator making a toung in cheeck critique of gun laws, that they do not address what makes the gun dangerous? Perhaps we should do what he wants and make bullets illegal instead.

Pointing out that a position is intensly stupid in addition to being an infringement of fundamental rights is not an endorsement of a less intensely stupid form of the same infringement.


I'm just taking it to its logical conclusion.
 
2013-04-23 10:21:58 AM
I thought libs enjoyed ridiculous political parody? "Butthurt much?" or "Too soon?"
 
2013-04-23 10:22:23 AM

markfara: Well, that sure shoots the "guns are the only way to kill people" argument -- you know, the one that the gun-control advocates base their entire argument on -- right in the ass.



Really? Because last time I checked, pressure cookers weren't specifically manufactured to mortally wound stuff.
 
2013-04-23 10:22:25 AM

TerminalEchoes: vpb: Gun nuts take that "we can't have gun control because other things kill people too" argument seriously.
I don't think it's trolling.

During the State of the Union speech back in January, didn't President Obama say "if we can do anything to protect just one child, shouldn't we do it?" Sure. A child was killed by a pressure cooker. Regulate! It's not trolling, it's using Obama's manipulative tactics against him.


Pressure cookers already have way more safety features than a standard pistol.  If you have some suggestions to improve their safely, please go ahead and write them down.
 
2013-04-23 10:23:17 AM

vpb: Gun nuts take that "we can't have gun control because other things kill people too" argument seriously.
I don't think it's trolling.


You can take something seriously and stil be a petulant douchebag about it.
 
2013-04-23 10:24:15 AM

optimistic_cynic: markfara: Well, that sure shoots the "guns are the only way to kill people" argument -- you know, the one that the gun-control advocates base their entire argument on -- right in the ass.

What does it do for the argument that guns are only designed for killing? Because that's normally the one used, not the one you pulled out of your ass.


Quit being so dramatic. They can also wound and maim.
 
2013-04-23 10:24:32 AM
We don't need more bomb control. Explosives don't kill people, people kill people.
 
2013-04-23 10:25:01 AM

thurstonxhowell: TerminalEchoes: vpb: Gun nuts take that "we can't have gun control because other things kill people too" argument seriously.
I don't think it's trolling.

During the State of the Union speech back in January, didn't President Obama say "if we can do anything to protect just one child, shouldn't we do it?" Sure. A child was killed by a pressure cooker. Regulate! It's not trolling, it's using Obama's manipulative tactics against him.

Run with that. Seriously, keep repeating it. Regulating guns in response to gun violence is the exact same thing as regulating pressure cookers in response to the Boston bombings. Always say that. People will respect you.


According to Obama's speech, yes it's the same thing. Of course it's stupid. I won't debate that.
 
2013-04-23 10:25:53 AM

Farce-Side: optimistic_cynic: What does it do for the argument that guns are only designed for killing? Because that's normally the one used, not the one you pulled out of your ass.

Several guns are designed for competition shooting, and not for actual killing.  It just so happens that they are also very good for killing, but cost hundreds to sometimes thousands of dollars more than another gun designed only for killing.


True but even in competition the object is do destroy the object you're shooting at whether it be a paper target or clay pigeons, it is still a tool for destruction. I would say the same for for archery as well.

/likes guns but does support stronger background checks
 
2013-04-23 10:26:27 AM
Dayum...you lefties are thin skinned.
Go home and play with your dolls, little girls.
 
2013-04-23 10:26:39 AM

Farce-Side: it's not a smart move to do shiat like this when you're a Senator.


Well, he's just a state senator.
 
2013-04-23 10:26:46 AM

TerminalEchoes: thurstonxhowell: TerminalEchoes: vpb: Gun nuts take that "we can't have gun control because other things kill people too" argument seriously.
I don't think it's trolling.

During the State of the Union speech back in January, didn't President Obama say "if we can do anything to protect just one child, shouldn't we do it?" Sure. A child was killed by a pressure cooker. Regulate! It's not trolling, it's using Obama's manipulative tactics against him.

Run with that. Seriously, keep repeating it. Regulating guns in response to gun violence is the exact same thing as regulating pressure cookers in response to the Boston bombings. Always say that. People will respect you.

According to Obama's speech, yes it's the same thing. Of course it's stupid. I won't debate that.


Repeat my last post, but insert "Obama said that" right before "regulating guns in response". This is an idea that must spread. It is clearly a well-thought out point. You might get Obama impeached over this.
 
2013-04-23 10:28:01 AM

jehovahs witness protection: Dayum...you lefties are thin skinned.
Go home and play with your dolls, little girls.


If I called this stupid I would be accused of making an ad hominem attack.

Look at it
 
2013-04-23 10:28:17 AM
Am I a bad person for laughing at that?
 
2013-04-23 10:28:31 AM
butt hurt thread is butt hurt.

The same joke has been made 100 times on fark about everything that kills someone. Get a sense of humor or go home.
 
2013-04-23 10:30:52 AM

CPennypacker: Ned Stark: CPennypacker: Is the senator making a toung in cheeck critique of gun laws, that they do not address what makes the gun dangerous? Perhaps we should do what he wants and make bullets illegal instead.

Pointing out that a position is intensly stupid in addition to being an infringement of fundamental rights is not an endorsement of a less intensely stupid form of the same infringement.

I'm just taking it to its logical conclusion.


Except you aren't. I just pointed out the critical flaw in your reasoning. Stupidity was never the sole objection.
 
2013-04-23 10:30:58 AM
wsmv.images.worldnow.com

Evil, black.  ?!?!?!

/tries to find some popcorn.
 
2013-04-23 10:30:59 AM

TerminalEchoes: vpb: Gun nuts take that "we can't have gun control because other things kill people too" argument seriously.
I don't think it's trolling.

During the State of the Union speech back in January, didn't President Obama say "if we can do anything to protect just one child, shouldn't we do it?" Sure. A child was killed by a pressure cooker. Regulate! It's not trolling, it's using Obama's manipulative tactics against him.


Let's ban guns and you can have all the pressure cookers to defend yourself.

Such a smart argument.
 
2013-04-23 10:31:17 AM
We just need to ban all high-capacity pressure cookers, and that will solve everything.
 
2013-04-23 10:31:49 AM
Do we know yet where the Tsarnaevs got their AR-15 and handguns?
 
2013-04-23 10:32:09 AM
If Dzhokar had escaped on Friday, Sen. Campfield would support his purchase of firearms without a background check.

But HA HA PRESSURE COOKERS HA.
 
2013-04-23 10:32:35 AM

jaybeezey: The same joke has been made 100 times on fark about everything that kills someone. Get a sense of humor or go home.


I would argue that the people who are making the same joke they've heard 100 times before should get a sense of humor, or at least find someone with one to imitate.
 
2013-04-23 10:33:13 AM
Do we now have the dumbest politicians in recent memory? Why is this sounding so much like Idiocracy?
 
2013-04-23 10:33:16 AM

vpb: Gun nuts take that "we can't have gun control because other things kill people too" argument seriously.
I don't think it's trolling.


One of my cousins, whom I usually ignore, posted this on Facebook:

i.imgur.com

My first reaction is that it is illegal to manufacture, possess, or use a bomb. Further we highly regulate the operation of automobiles and most states require people who do so to be insured. So why the pro-gun folks are trying to draw parallels between them is beyond me.
 
2013-04-23 10:34:07 AM

Keyser_Soze_Death: We just need to ban all high-capacity pressure cookers, and that will solve everything.


Who needs to cook that much food anyway? Can't you just cook the same meal twice?

Maybe this would solve our obesity problem...
 
2013-04-23 10:34:07 AM

jaybeezey: butt hurt thread is butt hurt.

The same joke has been made 100 times on fark about everything that kills someone. Get a sense of humor or go home.


Whatever you say gov.
 
2013-04-23 10:34:09 AM

vpb: Gun nuts take that "we can't have gun control because other things kill people too" argument seriously.
I don't think it's trolling.


Eh, the "these models are 'assault models' and should be banned because they're scary" argument is stupid and deserves to be mocked.

However, the joke's kind of a dead-horse one at this point, since the people that suggested that argument were mocked, told to fark off, and not allowed to write the bill last time.  The last bill was about background checks and other measures regarded as sensible by basically everyone, and didn't have any of the "assault weapons" stupidity that the .gif is making fun of.

Lord_Baull: Really? Because last time I checked, pressure cookers weren't specifically manufactured to mortally wound stuff.


They're actually pretty dangerous, if you're saying that seriously and genuinely don't know.  I would probably take a kid to a gun range before I let them hang out near even a seemingly properly-working pressure cooker.

I mean, obviously they're not rigged as actual bombs by default, but a latch failure can give you a faceful of boiling oil at four or five paces and they do occasionally explode.  I would treat them with the same if not more respect you'd give a loaded firearm while using them.  If you have kids at your cook-out I'd stick to less dangerous stuff like grilling.
 
2013-04-23 10:34:21 AM
Campfield is the same douchenozzle that wanted to punish poor kids who don't do well in school by effectively taking food out of their mouthes.  Fark him sideways.

One old fool I know thinks that pressure cooker picture is hilarious and somehow insightful.  He also thinks a  graphic suggesting the surviving bomber could someday be an advisor, ala Ayers,  to President Obama is clever.

It's almost as if he is acknowledging that Democrats could very well continue to be elected to the highest office until the year that the bomber gets out of prison....if he ever does.
 
2013-04-23 10:34:31 AM

thurstonxhowell: TerminalEchoes: thurstonxhowell: TerminalEchoes: vpb: Gun nuts take that "we can't have gun control because other things kill people too" argument seriously.
I don't think it's trolling.

During the State of the Union speech back in January, didn't President Obama say "if we can do anything to protect just one child, shouldn't we do it?" Sure. A child was killed by a pressure cooker. Regulate! It's not trolling, it's using Obama's manipulative tactics against him.

Run with that. Seriously, keep repeating it. Regulating guns in response to gun violence is the exact same thing as regulating pressure cookers in response to the Boston bombings. Always say that. People will respect you.

According to Obama's speech, yes it's the same thing. Of course it's stupid. I won't debate that.

Repeat my last post, but insert "Obama said that" right before "regulating guns in response". This is an idea that must spread. It is clearly a well-thought out point. You might get Obama impeached over this.


See, now you're just putting words in my mouth. My point was that his knee jerk Appeal to Emotion (or For the Children) speech was nothing but rhetoric and not clearly thought out. No one wants to seriously regulate pressure cookers. People are just pointing out that--according to Obama's exact words--anything that has ever killed a child should be regulated or banned.
 
2013-04-23 10:34:37 AM

TerminalEchoes: During the State of the Union speech back in January, didn't President Obama say "if we can do anything to protect just one child, shouldn't we do it?" Sure. A child was killed by a pressure cooker. Regulate! It's not trolling, it's using Obama's manipulative tactics against him.



Yes, please shout from the rooftops that regulating pressure cookers would be as effective as regulating the sale of guns. I'm sure your arguments would not at all be considered completely inane.
 
2013-04-23 10:34:54 AM

Ned Stark: CPennypacker: Ned Stark: CPennypacker: Is the senator making a toung in cheeck critique of gun laws, that they do not address what makes the gun dangerous? Perhaps we should do what he wants and make bullets illegal instead.

Pointing out that a position is intensly stupid in addition to being an infringement of fundamental rights is not an endorsement of a less intensely stupid form of the same infringement.

I'm just taking it to its logical conclusion.

Except you aren't. I just pointed out the critical flaw in your reasoning. Stupidity was never the sole objection.


Sure I am. He's mocking the AWB because it doesn't do anything. So fair enough, let's implement legislation that does, because clearly that is what he wants, or else why mock the legislation? What else could he want? He wouldn't be engaging in any intellectual dishonesty at all would he? Because I wouldn't expect that from an esteemed member of our legislative body, nosiree.
 
2013-04-23 10:35:11 AM
Thanks for the ammo, Senator.
 
2013-04-23 10:35:21 AM

optimistic_cynic: markfara: Well, that sure shoots the "guns are the only way to kill people" argument -- you know, the one that the gun-control advocates base their entire argument on -- right in the ass.

What does it do for the argument that guns are only designed for killing? Because that's normally the one used, not the one you pulled out of your ass.


Sarcasm. How does it work?
 
2013-04-23 10:36:20 AM

markfara: optimistic_cynic: markfara: Well, that sure shoots the "guns are the only way to kill people" argument -- you know, the one that the gun-control advocates base their entire argument on -- right in the ass.

What does it do for the argument that guns are only designed for killing? Because that's normally the one used, not the one you pulled out of your ass.

Sarcasm. How does it work?


Not well in the written medium...
 
2013-04-23 10:36:31 AM

markfara: optimistic_cynic: markfara: Well, that sure shoots the "guns are the only way to kill people" argument -- you know, the one that the gun-control advocates base their entire argument on -- right in the ass.

What does it do for the argument that guns are only designed for killing? Because that's normally the one used, not the one you pulled out of your ass.

Sarcasm. How does it work?


Dude you trolled everyone with that!  Congratulations, 10/10!
 
2013-04-23 10:36:32 AM
In other troll-tastic news, I had this sent to me this morning.
http://lewrockwell.com/poindexter/poindexter11.1.html

Farkin Christ, man
 
2013-04-23 10:37:24 AM

vpb: Gun nuts take that "we can't have gun control because other things kill people too" argument seriously.
I don't think it's trolling.


Gun ban advocates claim that pistol grips and collapsing stocks enhance the lethality of a rifle. I know that it is not trolling; they really are that stupid.
 
2013-04-23 10:37:47 AM
 
2013-04-23 10:38:01 AM

jehovahs witness protection: Dayum...you lefties are thin skinned.
Go home and play with your dolls, little girls.



Says the guy that complains because Michelle appeared on the Oscars.
 
2013-04-23 10:39:03 AM

TerminalEchoes: People are just pointing out that--according to Obama's exact words--anything that has ever killed a child should be regulated or banned.


You're doing a fine job here! Somehow I doubt the pay's very good, though.
 
2013-04-23 10:40:02 AM

Wellon Dowd: My first reaction is that it is illegal to manufacture, possess, or use a bomb. Further we highly regulate the operation of automobiles and most states require people who do so to be insured. So why the pro-gun folks are trying to draw parallels between them is beyond me.


I think you're over-analyzing the very simple point of the graphic: "blame".
 
2013-04-23 10:40:05 AM

optimistic_cynic: True but even in competition the object is do destroy the object you're shooting at whether it be a paper target or clay pigeons, it is still a tool for destruction. I would say the same for for archery as well.

/likes guns but does support stronger background checks


By that logic, boiling things in pressurized oil isn't exactly good for them, or constructive...
 
2013-04-23 10:40:06 AM
The office idiot at my work was making the jokes as soon as it was revealed that pressure cookers were used. Asshole.
 
2013-04-23 10:40:29 AM

TerminalEchoes: vpb: Gun nuts take that "we can't have gun control because other things kill people too" argument seriously.
I don't think it's trolling.

During the State of the Union speech back in January, didn't President Obama say "if we can do anything to protect just one child, shouldn't we do it?" Sure. A child was killed by a pressure cooker. Regulate! It's not trolling, it's using Obama's manipulative tactics against him.


Actually, he didn't say that. So, your argument is null and void. Try not to use quotes for something you're not quoting. And try not to make things up.
 
2013-04-23 10:40:29 AM

Wellon Dowd: So why the pro-gun folks are trying to draw parallels between them is beyond me.


It's an attempt to change the argument, because they're not sure they can "win" the current one. It's a superficial misdirection that will work on those who don't actually think about it.

With the 'tactical latch' and 'tactical pistol grip', I'd almost think the Senator was parodying the gun nut side of things who add the word "Tactical" to everything as if that makes it better. But I get the feeling he's actually entirely serious, and that's sad.
 
2013-04-23 10:41:05 AM

TerminalEchoes: thurstonxhowell: TerminalEchoes: thurstonxhowell: TerminalEchoes: vpb: Gun nuts take that "we can't have gun control because other things kill people too" argument seriously.
I don't think it's trolling.

During the State of the Union speech back in January, didn't President Obama say "if we can do anything to protect just one child, shouldn't we do it?" Sure. A child was killed by a pressure cooker. Regulate! It's not trolling, it's using Obama's manipulative tactics against him.

Run with that. Seriously, keep repeating it. Regulating guns in response to gun violence is the exact same thing as regulating pressure cookers in response to the Boston bombings. Always say that. People will respect you.

According to Obama's speech, yes it's the same thing. Of course it's stupid. I won't debate that.

Repeat my last post, but insert "Obama said that" right before "regulating guns in response". This is an idea that must spread. It is clearly a well-thought out point. You might get Obama impeached over this.

See, now you're just putting words in my mouth. My point was that his knee jerk Appeal to Emotion (or For the Children) speech was nothing but rhetoric and not clearly thought out. No one wants to seriously regulate pressure cookers. People are just pointing out that--according to Obama's exact words--anything that has ever killed a child should be regulated or banned.



I've bolded the place where your strawman falls apart.
 
2013-04-23 10:41:33 AM

TerminalEchoes: thurstonxhowell: TerminalEchoes: thurstonxhowell: TerminalEchoes: vpb: Gun nuts take that "we can't have gun control because other things kill people too" argument seriously.
I don't think it's trolling.

During the State of the Union speech back in January, didn't President Obama say "if we can do anything to protect just one child, shouldn't we do it?" Sure. A child was killed by a pressure cooker. Regulate! It's not trolling, it's using Obama's manipulative tactics against him.

Run with that. Seriously, keep repeating it. Regulating guns in response to gun violence is the exact same thing as regulating pressure cookers in response to the Boston bombings. Always say that. People will respect you.

According to Obama's speech, yes it's the same thing. Of course it's stupid. I won't debate that.

Repeat my last post, but insert "Obama said that" right before "regulating guns in response". This is an idea that must spread. It is clearly a well-thought out point. You might get Obama impeached over this.

See, now you're just putting words in my mouth. My point was that his knee jerk Appeal to Emotion (or For the Children) speech was nothing but rhetoric and not clearly thought out. No one wants to seriously regulate pressure cookers. People are just pointing out that--according to Obama's exact words--anything that has ever killed a child should be regulated or banned.


OK, fair enough. "Obama said that" was obviously putting words in your mouth when what you meant to say was "according to Obama's exact words". I apologize for completely misstating your idea. I don't know how I could have gotten it so, so wrong.
 
2013-04-23 10:42:01 AM
this shiat is just not funny, you cawk
 
2013-04-23 10:42:04 AM

star_topology: In other troll-tastic news, I had this sent to me this morning.
http://lewrockwell.com/poindexter/poindexter11.1.html

Farkin Christ, man


Fascist pig delivering groceries to the enslaved.

i.imgur.com
 
2013-04-23 10:42:20 AM

Dimensio: Gun ban advocates claim that pistol grips and collapsing stocks enhance the lethality of a rifle. I know that it is not trolling; they really are that stupid.


Gun Ban Advocate Primary Sources of Knowledge on Firearms: Movies, CSI, Dianne Feinstein, the guy behind 7/11 who robs them three times a week
 
2013-04-23 10:45:43 AM
Ugh.  To all the gun nuts out there:  "THIS shiat IS GETTING REALLY OLD.  PLEASE STOP FILLING UP MY FACEBOOK NEWSFEED WITH YOUR MORONIC ARGUMENTS."

Jesus.  If you were consistent at all, you would say that it is your god-given right to make pressure cooker bombs because they're necessary to defend against a tyrannical government. And, you would be arguing to repeal the laws making the manufacture and possession of IEDs illegal.   After all, "the bomb didn't kill those people, a crazy nutjob did!  Don't blame the innocent bomb!"

On wait.  Making that argument would make you sound even more crazy.  I guess you gotta draw the line somewhere.  Good thing your favorite hobby doesn't involve stockpiling pressure cooker bombs, or you'd be going nuts right now.
 
2013-04-23 10:45:50 AM

TerminalEchoes: according to Obama's exact words


Just reminding everyone that you're a liar. You know people can use the internet to look things up, right?
 
2013-04-23 10:45:51 AM
Substitute a word or two.

Gun Pressure cooker control advocates in Sacramento are putting a new twist on an old NRA slogan: "Guns Pressure Cookers don't kill people -- bullets ball bearings and nails kill people."
Democratic lawmakers are pushing like never before to regulate or tax ammunition pressure cook, ball bearing and nail sales. They say the logic is simple: A firearm pressure cooker is nothing but an expensive paperweight without ammunition ball bearings and nails.

"We regulated gun pressure cooker sales because of our concern about safety, (so) by logical extension we should do so with bullets," said state Assemblywoman Nancy Skinner, D-Berkeley, whose AB48 will be heard Tuesday by the Assembly Public Safety Committee.

How many ball bearings and nails do people need? Ever see the damage a 16d nail can do, well have ya?

When pressure cookers were introduced it was to protect their families from starvation. The founders could have never ever imagined they would be used to slaughter children.
 
2013-04-23 10:46:14 AM

CPennypacker: Ned Stark: CPennypacker: Ned Stark: CPennypacker: Is the senator making a toung in cheeck critique of gun laws, that they do not address what makes the gun dangerous? Perhaps we should do what he wants and make bullets illegal instead.

Pointing out that a position is intensly stupid in addition to being an infringement of fundamental rights is not an endorsement of a less intensely stupid form of the same infringement.

I'm just taking it to its logical conclusion.

Except you aren't. I just pointed out the critical flaw in your reasoning. Stupidity was never the sole objection.

Sure I am. He's mocking the AWB because it doesn't do anything. So fair enough, let's implement legislation that does, because clearly that is what he wants, or else why mock the legislation? What else could he want? He wouldn't be engaging in any intellectual dishonesty at all would he? Because I wouldn't expect that from an esteemed member of our legislative body, nosiree.


If Republicans tomorrow staretd up a crusade to close the borders to Asian immigration and to deport all the Asians already here in order to reduce crime, in addition to all the wholly justified crices of racism, authoritarianism, fascism, etc. There would be plenty of Democrats laughingly pointing out that Asians are in fact underrepresented I'm crime. Not a single one of them would mean "so lets deport blacks".
 
2013-04-23 10:46:31 AM

GoldSpider: Wellon Dowd: My first reaction is that it is illegal to manufacture, possess, or use a bomb. Further we highly regulate the operation of automobiles and most states require people who do so to be insured. So why the pro-gun folks are trying to draw parallels between them is beyond me.

I think you're over-analyzing the very simple point of the graphic: "blame".


I think you're underanalyzing the fact that we do blame shooters. Like, all the time. We even put them in prison. Trials and everything.
 
2013-04-23 10:48:14 AM
While this is stupid to try to blame pressure cookers for this situation, some don't feel it is stupid to try to blame guns for gun violence...  are there any other situations that people try to blame on objects instead of the people who used those objects or is it just guns?
 
2013-04-23 10:48:37 AM

thurstonxhowell: I think you're underanalyzing the fact that we do blame shooters. Like, all the time. We even put them in prison. Trials and everything.


That explains why the rhetoric is largely confined to "gun control" and not "would-be shooter control".
 
2013-04-23 10:49:05 AM

Ned Stark: CPennypacker: Ned Stark: CPennypacker: Ned Stark: CPennypacker: Is the senator making a toung in cheeck critique of gun laws, that they do not address what makes the gun dangerous? Perhaps we should do what he wants and make bullets illegal instead.

Pointing out that a position is intensly stupid in addition to being an infringement of fundamental rights is not an endorsement of a less intensely stupid form of the same infringement.

I'm just taking it to its logical conclusion.

Except you aren't. I just pointed out the critical flaw in your reasoning. Stupidity was never the sole objection.

Sure I am. He's mocking the AWB because it doesn't do anything. So fair enough, let's implement legislation that does, because clearly that is what he wants, or else why mock the legislation? What else could he want? He wouldn't be engaging in any intellectual dishonesty at all would he? Because I wouldn't expect that from an esteemed member of our legislative body, nosiree.

If Republicans tomorrow staretd up a crusade to close the borders to Asian immigration and to deport all the Asians already here in order to reduce crime, in addition to all the wholly justified crices of racism, authoritarianism, fascism, etc. There would be plenty of Democrats laughingly pointing out that Asians are in fact underrepresented I'm crime. Not a single one of them would mean "so lets deport blacks".


i.chzbgr.com
 
2013-04-23 10:50:03 AM
So he wants to regulate guns like we do explosives? I'm OK with this.
 
2013-04-23 10:50:34 AM

Car_Ramrod: TerminalEchoes: according to Obama's exact words

Just reminding everyone that you're a liar. You know people can use the internet to look things up, right?


"If even one child's life can be saved, then we need to act"

It's on the White House website.
 
2013-04-23 10:51:33 AM

Fart_Machine: So he wants to regulate guns like we do explosives? I'm OK with this.


Am I crazy to think that anyone buying a pressure cooker in the upcoming weeks might elicit a raised eyebrow or two?
 
2013-04-23 10:51:55 AM

GanjSmokr: While this is stupid to try to blame pressure cookers for this situation, some don't feel it is stupid to try to blame guns for gun violence...  are there any other situations that people try to blame on objects instead of the people who used those objects or is it just guns?


Again, in all fairness, the last "gun control" bill was firmly targeting the criminals and not the guns themselves.  The whole point of background checks is to enforce the prohibition of convicted felons arming themselves and does nothing whatsoever to non-criminals.
 
2013-04-23 10:51:56 AM

GanjSmokr: While this is stupid to try to blame pressure cookers for this situation, some don't feel it is stupid to try to blame guns for gun violence...  are there any other situations that people try to blame on objects instead of the people who used those objects or is it just guns?


You think this whole thing is about blame? No wonder we can't get anywhere. Not everything is a moral crusade. We just want less dead kids.
 
2013-04-23 10:52:54 AM
Video games don't kill people. It's an inanimate object. And people who want video games will find it anyway.

Why isn't anyone screaming that video game control laws aren't needed?

Music doesn't kill people It's an inanimate object. And people who want music will find it anyway.

Why isn't anyone screaming that video game control laws aren't needed?

Movies don't kill people. It's an inanimate object. And people who want movies will find it anyway.

What's the point of having a gun? You are going to get shot or robbed anyway.
 
2013-04-23 10:53:02 AM
Americans are more narrowly divided on the issue than in recent months, and backing for a bill has slipped below 50%, the poll finds. By 49%-45%, those surveyed favor Congress passing a new gun-control law. In an NBC/Wall Street Journal poll in early April, 55% had backed a stricter gun law, which was down from 61% in February.

From USA Today. The window for more gun control measures is closing quickly. I predict it'll slip to pre-Sandy Hook levels in a month or two.
 
2013-04-23 10:53:58 AM

Frank N Stein: Car_Ramrod: TerminalEchoes: according to Obama's exact words

Just reminding everyone that you're a liar. You know people can use the internet to look things up, right?

"If even one child's life can be saved, then we need to act"

It's on the White House website.


So you're cool with regulating black/gunpowerder and its substitutes?  Otherwise why would he bother?
 
2013-04-23 10:54:43 AM

Jim_Callahan: Again, in all fairness, the last "gun control" bill was firmly targeting the criminals and not the guns themselves.


Except it would have affected every prospective gun buyer, not just criminals.  Full disclosure: I don't oppose background checks.
 
2013-04-23 10:54:45 AM

GanjSmokr: While this is stupid to try to blame pressure cookers for this situation, some don't feel it is stupid to try to blame guns for gun violence...  are there any other situations that people try to blame on objects instead of the people who used those objects or is it just guns?



I hear all the time in the news about how "the car" careeened out of control and crashed into the Farmer's Market. You also hear about family tragedies when "the gun went off accidentally."
 
2013-04-23 10:54:58 AM

Wellon Dowd: Fascist pig delivering groceries to the enslaved.


That looks like Jack O'Neill carrying milk.
It wasn't Chechens at all was it?  Lucian Alliance maybe?
 
2013-04-23 10:55:21 AM

GoldSpider: thurstonxhowell: I think you're underanalyzing the fact that we do blame shooters. Like, all the time. We even put them in prison. Trials and everything.

That explains why the rhetoric is largely confined to "gun control" and not "would-be shooter control".


It doesn't, but it does blow a tremendous hole in the "we don't blame shooters" theory. What with the fact that we obviously do, and all.
 
2013-04-23 10:55:40 AM

Jim_Callahan: GanjSmokr: While this is stupid to try to blame pressure cookers for this situation, some don't feel it is stupid to try to blame guns for gun violence...  are there any other situations that people try to blame on objects instead of the people who used those objects or is it just guns?

Again, in all fairness, the last "gun control" bill was firmly targeting the criminals and not the guns themselves.  The whole point of background checks is to enforce the prohibition of convicted felons arming themselves and does nothing whatsoever to non-criminals.


Was it horrible? No. But it was a rushed piece of legislation with little thought. If I'm at a range, I can't let a buddy or another patron shoot my gun without seeing them pass a background check because this would have been considered a 'transfer'. If I was hunting on my own property in northern Michigan at a cabin with a few friends, I couldn't let someone take my hunting rifle out for a morning because that would be illegal under that law. There was just some common sense missing. I've posted my idea on reasonable background checks in other threads, not gonna beat a dead horse, but it's possible to get everyone on the same page and cut this partisan crap.
 
2013-04-23 10:56:03 AM

Frank N Stein: Car_Ramrod: TerminalEchoes: according to Obama's exact words

Just reminding everyone that you're a liar. You know people can use the internet to look things up, right?

"If even one child's life can be saved, then we need to act"

It's on the White House website.


That's not what TE was referring to.
 
2013-04-23 10:56:33 AM

Jim_Callahan: optimistic_cynic: True but even in competition the object is do destroy the object you're shooting at whether it be a paper target or clay pigeons, it is still a tool for destruction. I would say the same for for archery as well.

/likes guns but does support stronger background checks

By that logic, boiling things in pressurized oil isn't exactly good for them, or constructive...


Perhaps, but I'm still pretty sure that guns were originally designed for killing and killing only as opposed to say a knife that has both utility and killing purposes.
 
2013-04-23 10:56:43 AM

GanjSmokr: While this is stupid to try to blame pressure cookers for this situation, some don't feel it is stupid to try to blame guns for gun violence...  are there any other situations that people try to blame on objects instead of the people who used those objects or is it just guns?



Have you ever considered that this is a strawman argument, and that the point of gun control isn't to "blame" guns for violence, but to take common-sense measures to reduce the prevalence and availability of guns in our society?   Have you ever considered the mountains of evidence that countries with strict gun regulation have dramatically lower rates of gun violence and homicide in general?
 
2013-04-23 10:57:16 AM

Tomahawk513: So you're cool with regulating black/gunpowerder and its substitutes? Otherwise why would he bother?


Huh? I'm just quoting Obama website.
 
2013-04-23 10:57:40 AM

CPennypacker: Ned Stark: CPennypacker: Ned Stark: CPennypacker: Ned Stark: CPennypacker: Is the senator making a toung in cheeck critique of gun laws, that they do not address what makes the gun dangerous? Perhaps we should do what he wants and make bullets illegal instead.

Pointing out that a position is intensly stupid in addition to being an infringement of fundamental rights is not an endorsement of a less intensely stupid form of the same infringement.

I'm just taking it to its logical conclusion.

Except you aren't. I just pointed out the critical flaw in your reasoning. Stupidity was never the sole objection.

Sure I am. He's mocking the AWB because it doesn't do anything. So fair enough, let's implement legislation that does, because clearly that is what he wants, or else why mock the legislation? What else could he want? He wouldn't be engaging in any intellectual dishonesty at all would he? Because I wouldn't expect that from an esteemed member of our legislative body, nosiree.

If Republicans tomorrow staretd up a crusade to close the borders to Asian immigration and to deport all the Asians already here in order to reduce crime, in addition to all the wholly justified crices of racism, authoritarianism, fascism, etc. There would be plenty of Democrats laughingly pointing out that Asians are in fact underrepresented I'm crime. Not a single one of them would mean "so lets deport blacks".


Well I tried explaing the concept and you just couldn't grasp it so I tried analogy. You've heard of them before, right?
 
2013-04-23 10:58:30 AM

GoldSpider: Fart_Machine: So he wants to regulate guns like we do explosives? I'm OK with this.

Am I crazy to think that anyone buying a pressure cooker in the upcoming weeks might elicit a raised eyebrow or two?


Because pressure cookers already come pre-equipped with explosives?
 
2013-04-23 10:59:37 AM

CPennypacker: GanjSmokr: While this is stupid to try to blame pressure cookers for this situation, some don't feel it is stupid to try to blame guns for gun violence...  are there any other situations that people try to blame on objects instead of the people who used those objects or is it just guns?

You think this whole thing is about blame? No wonder we can't get anywhere. Not everything is a moral crusade. We just want less dead kids.


I asked you this once in a previous thread, and you stopped talking to me... what amount of children killed by guns will be "acceptable" to you?

Lord_Baull: GanjSmokr: While this is stupid to try to blame pressure cookers for this situation, some don't feel it is stupid to try to blame guns for gun violence...  are there any other situations that people try to blame on objects instead of the people who used those objects or is it just guns?


I hear all the time in the news about how "the car" careeened out of control and crashed into the Farmer's Market. You also hear about family tragedies when "the gun went off accidentally."


We blame the elderly driver that drove the car into the Farmer's Market, not the car. We don't then start banning that make and model of car that was driven either.  And when you say "the gun went off accidentally", I don't see any people being blamed - just the "gun".  Had you said "Someone accidentally fired the gun" instead of "the gun went off accidentally", that would be blaming a person.
 
2013-04-23 10:59:46 AM
 
2013-04-23 11:00:07 AM
As a person who owns guns, supports gun rights, and doesn't think any meaningful legislation will be passed (that is not to say legislation will not be passed, just that it won't be meaningful, i.e. will not solve the gun violence problem), let me just say that most of the strawman arguments posed by gun rights advocates totally suck balls and don't serve to prove anything other than there's a lot of mouth breathers with guns.  Also, a lot of the arguments posed by gun control advocates are ill-informed, lacking in fact, based upon heresay, and also void of any reason or understanding of the myriad of different cultures contained right here in our great nation.  It seems that those that yell the loudest, on both sides, need to shut the fark up and let the adults figure it out, because they have no farking clue what they are actually talking about.  Emotion, vitriol, and misinformation are things that should never be used as a catalyst to legislation, or a lack thereof.
 
2013-04-23 11:01:51 AM

Car_Ramrod: Frank N Stein: Car_Ramrod: TerminalEchoes: according to Obama's exact words

Just reminding everyone that you're a liar. You know people can use the internet to look things up, right?

"If even one child's life can be saved, then we need to act"

It's on the White House website.

That's not what TE was referring to.


Nevertheless, it is what Obama believes. Why else would he have it on his website?
 
2013-04-23 11:01:52 AM

Fart_Machine: Because pressure cookers already come pre-equipped with explosives?


A perception about pressure cookers as an instrument of terrorism has been formed in the public where none existed before.  Same as box-cutters after 9/11.
 
2013-04-23 11:01:58 AM
That's mildly amusing but everyone with an ounce of brains knows that it's not the pressure cooker that made the boom, it was the explosive inside.   The obvious solution would be to require background checks for purchasing explosives (or anything that contains explosives) and adding chemical tags so that they can be traced.
 
2013-04-23 11:02:00 AM

Chummer45: GanjSmokr: While this is stupid to try to blame pressure cookers for this situation, some don't feel it is stupid to try to blame guns for gun violence...  are there any other situations that people try to blame on objects instead of the people who used those objects or is it just guns?


Have you ever considered that this is a strawman argument, and that the point of gun control isn't to "blame" guns for violence, but to take common-sense measures to reduce the prevalence and availability of guns in our society?   Have you ever considered the mountains of evidence that countries with strict gun regulation have dramatically lower rates of gun violence and homicide in general?


Like Mexico, the Middle East, Russia, Brazil?

Or Switzerland, Finland, Sweden, Norway, France? 

Yeah, keep pushing that we can solve everything because getting rid of guns would be a magic bullet.
 
2013-04-23 11:02:36 AM

Wellon Dowd: vpb: Gun nuts take that "we can't have gun control because other things kill people too" argument seriously.
I don't think it's trolling.

One of my cousins, whom I usually ignore, posted this on Facebook:

[i.imgur.com image 412x403]

My first reaction is that it is illegal to manufacture, possess, or use a bomb. Further we highly regulate the operation of automobiles and most states require people who do so to be insured. So why the pro-gun folks are trying to draw parallels between them is beyond me.


so you're saying there are no gun regulations?  Heck I tripped over 3 of them coming into work today just laying around the sidewalk.  Kids at the bus stop were playing cowboys and indians with them before I got there.
 
2013-04-23 11:02:40 AM
The fact that there are people in this thread defending this "pressure cooker control" nonsense shows what a hive-mind the gun nuts have become.  They've really surrendered their ability to apply critical thinking to their own paranoid, false notions that owning a gun is so incredibly important that it truly is a matter of life and death in our society.

Keep towing the line for your corporate lobbyist NRA overlords, morons.
 
2013-04-23 11:02:45 AM
GanjSmokr:

I asked you this once in a previous thread, and you stopped talking to me... what amount of children killed by guns will be "acceptable" to you?

Why does it have to be a specific number? Can we agree that it is too high right now and work to reduce it? Or does that idea remain invalid unless I tell you that I want to reduce the number of murdered kids x%. Cuz if I have to pick a reduction percentage I want it would be 100%, but we have to be realistic.

Ned Stark:
Well I tried explaing the concept and you just couldn't grasp it so I tried analogy. You've heard of them before, right?

Sure I have. Yours is just bad and doesn't apply.
 
2013-04-23 11:03:33 AM

Farce-Side: As a person who owns guns, supports gun rights, and doesn't think any meaningful legislation will be passed (that is not to say legislation will not be passed, just that it won't be meaningful, i.e. will not solve the gun violence problem), let me just say that most of the strawman arguments posed by gun rights advocates totally suck balls and don't serve to prove anything other than there's a lot of mouth breathers with guns.  Also, a lot of the arguments posed by gun control advocates are ill-informed, lacking in fact, based upon heresay, and also void of any reason or understanding of the myriad of different cultures contained right here in our great nation.  It seems that those that yell the loudest, on both sides, need to shut the fark up and let the adults figure it out, because they have no farking clue what they are actually talking about.  Emotion, vitriol, and misinformation are things that should never be used as a catalyst to legislation, or a lack thereof.


This.
 
2013-04-23 11:03:54 AM

MichiganFTL: Chummer45: GanjSmokr: While this is stupid to try to blame pressure cookers for this situation, some don't feel it is stupid to try to blame guns for gun violence...  are there any other situations that people try to blame on objects instead of the people who used those objects or is it just guns?


Have you ever considered that this is a strawman argument, and that the point of gun control isn't to "blame" guns for violence, but to take common-sense measures to reduce the prevalence and availability of guns in our society?   Have you ever considered the mountains of evidence that countries with strict gun regulation have dramatically lower rates of gun violence and homicide in general?

Like Mexico, the Middle East, Russia, Brazil?

Or Switzerland, Finland, Sweden, Norway, France? 

Yeah, keep pushing that we can solve everything because getting rid of guns would be a magic bullet.



Yeah that's exactly what I argued.   Getting rid of guns would result in a utopian society.  You know what, you're right.  lets stockpile as many deadly weapons as possible.  That will make everyone a lot safer.

Jesus.
 
2013-04-23 11:04:08 AM

GanjSmokr: CPennypacker: GanjSmokr: While this is stupid to try to blame pressure cookers for this situation, some don't feel it is stupid to try to blame guns for gun violence...  are there any other situations that people try to blame on objects instead of the people who used those objects or is it just guns?

You think this whole thing is about blame? No wonder we can't get anywhere. Not everything is a moral crusade. We just want less dead kids.

I asked you this once in a previous thread, and you stopped talking to me... what amount of children killed by guns will be "acceptable" to you?

Lord_Baull: GanjSmokr: While this is stupid to try to blame pressure cookers for this situation, some don't feel it is stupid to try to blame guns for gun violence...  are there any other situations that people try to blame on objects instead of the people who used those objects or is it just guns?


I hear all the time in the news about how "the car" careeened out of control and crashed into the Farmer's Market. You also hear about family tragedies when "the gun went off accidentally."

We blame the elderly driver that drove the car into the Farmer's Market, not the car. We don't then start banning that make and model of car that was driven either.  And when you say "the gun went off accidentally", I don't see any people being blamed - just the "gun".  Had you said "Someone accidentally fired the gun" instead of "the gun went off accidentally", that would be blaming a person.



You need to pay more attention.
 
2013-04-23 11:04:54 AM

mysticcat: Fortunately, Senator Campfield, in whose district I grew up many moons ago, will not be around to troll us after the next election.  He'll be bankrolled out of office.


This. Knoxville has alot of idiots in it, but most are smart enough to recognize this loser for what he is: a closet case with a tiny dick.

I met him once. As swarmy and condescending as you would think.

/Has he been outed as a "secret gay" yet?
 
2013-04-23 11:06:33 AM

GoldSpider: Fart_Machine: Because pressure cookers already come pre-equipped with explosives?

A perception about pressure cookers as an instrument of terrorism has been formed in the public where none existed before.  Same as box-cutters after 9/11.


Yup just like shoes and underwear are associated with terrorism. Try more straw.
 
2013-04-23 11:06:51 AM

CPennypacker: GanjSmokr:

I asked you this once in a previous thread, and you stopped talking to me... what amount of children killed by guns will be "acceptable" to you?

Why does it have to be a specific number? Can we agree that it is too high right now and work to reduce it? Or does that idea remain invalid unless I tell you that I want to reduce the number of murdered kids x%. Cuz if I have to pick a reduction percentage I want it would be 100%, but we have to be realistic.

Ned Stark:
Well I tried explaing the concept and you just couldn't grasp it so I tried analogy. You've heard of them before, right?

Sure I have. Yours is just bad and doesn't apply.


What exactly doesn't fit about it?
 
2013-04-23 11:07:28 AM

Chummer45: MichiganFTL: Chummer45: GanjSmokr: While this is stupid to try to blame pressure cookers for this situation, some don't feel it is stupid to try to blame guns for gun violence...  are there any other situations that people try to blame on objects instead of the people who used those objects or is it just guns?


Have you ever considered that this is a strawman argument, and that the point of gun control isn't to "blame" guns for violence, but to take common-sense measures to reduce the prevalence and availability of guns in our society?   Have you ever considered the mountains of evidence that countries with strict gun regulation have dramatically lower rates of gun violence and homicide in general?

Like Mexico, the Middle East, Russia, Brazil?

Or Switzerland, Finland, Sweden, Norway, France? 

Yeah, keep pushing that we can solve everything because getting rid of guns would be a magic bullet.


Yeah that's exactly what I argued.   Getting rid of guns would result in a utopian society.  You know what, you're right.  lets stockpile as many deadly weapons as possible.  That will make everyone a lot safer.

Jesus.


What are your 'common sense' measures? Or are you just mad that there are a ton of countries with high gun ownership per capita with low murder/violence rates and that there are a ton of countries with low gun ownership per capita with high murder/violence rates which pokes holes in your 'mountains of evidence' argument?
 
2013-04-23 11:07:39 AM

CPennypacker: GanjSmokr:

I asked you this once in a previous thread, and you stopped talking to me... what amount of children killed by guns will be "acceptable" to you?

Why does it have to be a specific number? Can we agree that it is too high right now and work to reduce it? Or does that idea remain invalid unless I tell you that I want to reduce the number of murdered kids x%. Cuz if I have to pick a reduction percentage I want it would be 100%, but we have to be realistic.


I want to know because I'd like to know when there will be enough laws for you to be satisfied.

If, as you just said, you want it to be a 100% reduction, then there will never be enough laws for you and you'll never be satisfied with the situation.  Thanks for being honest here at least.
 
2013-04-23 11:07:42 AM

Frank N Stein: Car_Ramrod: Frank N Stein: Car_Ramrod: TerminalEchoes: according to Obama's exact words

Just reminding everyone that you're a liar. You know people can use the internet to look things up, right?

"If even one child's life can be saved, then we need to act"

It's on the White House website.

That's not what TE was referring to.

Nevertheless, it is what Obama believes. Why else would he have it on his website?


Well ignoring the fact that the person I was responding to was lying, which was the point of my post, why would Obama talk about the need to stop children from dying due to guns, in remarks specifically discussing gun violence? Probably because he's not an asshole.
 
2013-04-23 11:07:51 AM
Headline.

Headline.

Headline.


That took all of two minutes.
 
2013-04-23 11:08:25 AM

GanjSmokr: I asked you this once in a previous thread, and you stopped talking to me... what amount of children killed by guns will be "acceptable" to you?


It's a deflection tactic that depends on the assumption that "proposal X" will in fact reduce the number of child victims going unchallenged.  Anyone opposed to "proposal X" finds himself defending himself against a charge that he opposes reducing child victims.
 
2013-04-23 11:08:47 AM

GanjSmokr: CPennypacker: GanjSmokr:

I asked you this once in a previous thread, and you stopped talking to me... what amount of children killed by guns will be "acceptable" to you?

Why does it have to be a specific number? Can we agree that it is too high right now and work to reduce it? Or does that idea remain invalid unless I tell you that I want to reduce the number of murdered kids x%. Cuz if I have to pick a reduction percentage I want it would be 100%, but we have to be realistic.

I want to know because I'd like to know when there will be enough laws for you to be satisfied.

If, as you just said, you want it to be a 100% reduction, then there will never be enough laws for you and you'll never be satisfied with the situation.  Thanks for being honest here at least.


Are you saying you're ok with kids dying?
 
2013-04-23 11:08:47 AM

Car_Ramrod: Frank N Stein: Car_Ramrod: Frank N Stein: Car_Ramrod: TerminalEchoes: according to Obama's exact words

Just reminding everyone that you're a liar. You know people can use the internet to look things up, right?

"If even one child's life can be saved, then we need to act"

It's on the White House website.

That's not what TE was referring to.

Nevertheless, it is what Obama believes. Why else would he have it on his website?

Well ignoring the fact that the person I was responding to was lying, which was the point of my post, why would Obama talk about the need to stop children from dying due to guns, in remarks specifically discussing gun violence? Probably because he's not an asshole.


So do you support any measure that would prevent just one child from dying?
 
2013-04-23 11:09:42 AM

Ned Stark: CPennypacker: GanjSmokr:

I asked you this once in a previous thread, and you stopped talking to me... what amount of children killed by guns will be "acceptable" to you?

Why does it have to be a specific number? Can we agree that it is too high right now and work to reduce it? Or does that idea remain invalid unless I tell you that I want to reduce the number of murdered kids x%. Cuz if I have to pick a reduction percentage I want it would be 100%, but we have to be realistic.

Ned Stark:
Well I tried explaing the concept and you just couldn't grasp it so I tried analogy. You've heard of them before, right?

Sure I have. Yours is just bad and doesn't apply.

What exactly doesn't fit about it?


Ned I don't think it's just him, I didn't get it either man.  I'd love to know what you meant though.
 
2013-04-23 11:11:26 AM

GoldSpider: Anyone opposed to "proposal X" finds himself defending himself against a charge that he opposes reducing child victims.


CPennypacker: Are you saying you're ok with kids dying?


Thanks for so thoroughly demonstrating my point.
 
2013-04-23 11:11:48 AM
Some senators need a punch in the face.
 
2013-04-23 11:12:45 AM

GoldSpider: GoldSpider: Anyone opposed to "proposal X" finds himself defending himself against a charge that he opposes reducing child victims.

CPennypacker: Are you saying you're ok with kids dying?

Thanks for so thoroughly demonstrating my point.


If you read how our discussion started you would realize that your point doesn't apply to what I'm saying.
 
2013-04-23 11:13:04 AM

Tomahawk513: Ned Stark: CPennypacker: GanjSmokr:

I asked you this once in a previous thread, and you stopped talking to me... what amount of children killed by guns will be "acceptable" to you?

Why does it have to be a specific number? Can we agree that it is too high right now and work to reduce it? Or does that idea remain invalid unless I tell you that I want to reduce the number of murdered kids x%. Cuz if I have to pick a reduction percentage I want it would be 100%, but we have to be realistic.

Ned Stark:
Well I tried explaing the concept and you just couldn't grasp it so I tried analogy. You've heard of them before, right?

Sure I have. Yours is just bad and doesn't apply.

What exactly doesn't fit about it?

Ned I don't think it's just him, I didn't get it either man.  I'd love to know what you meant though.


"Your plan does not do what you say it does" is a valid criticism of a plan even if you still would not support an amended, functional plan.

That's all.
 
2013-04-23 11:14:50 AM

MichiganFTL: Chummer45: MichiganFTL: Chummer45: GanjSmokr: While this is stupid to try to blame pressure cookers for this situation, some don't feel it is stupid to try to blame guns for gun violence...  are there any other situations that people try to blame on objects instead of the people who used those objects or is it just guns?


Have you ever considered that this is a strawman argument, and that the point of gun control isn't to "blame" guns for violence, but to take common-sense measures to reduce the prevalence and availability of guns in our society?   Have you ever considered the mountains of evidence that countries with strict gun regulation have dramatically lower rates of gun violence and homicide in general?

Like Mexico, the Middle East, Russia, Brazil?

Or Switzerland, Finland, Sweden, Norway, France? 

Yeah, keep pushing that we can solve everything because getting rid of guns would be a magic bullet.


Yeah that's exactly what I argued.   Getting rid of guns would result in a utopian society.  You know what, you're right.  lets stockpile as many deadly weapons as possible.  That will make everyone a lot safer.

Jesus.

What are your 'common sense' measures? Or are you just mad that there are a ton of countries with high gun ownership per capita with low murder/violence rates and that there are a ton of countries with low gun ownership per capita with high murder/violence rates which pokes holes in your 'mountains of evidence' argument?


Hey as long as we have the same regulations and training as those countries you listed, I am all for it.
 
2013-04-23 11:16:13 AM

MichiganFTL: What are your 'common sense' measures?


Arresting kids who wear a t-shirt with a picture of a gun.
 
2013-04-23 11:17:40 AM

jrodr018: MichiganFTL: Chummer45: MichiganFTL: Chummer45: GanjSmokr: While this is stupid to try to blame pressure cookers for this situation, some don't feel it is stupid to try to blame guns for gun violence...  are there any other situations that people try to blame on objects instead of the people who used those objects or is it just guns?


Have you ever considered that this is a strawman argument, and that the point of gun control isn't to "blame" guns for violence, but to take common-sense measures to reduce the prevalence and availability of guns in our society?   Have you ever considered the mountains of evidence that countries with strict gun regulation have dramatically lower rates of gun violence and homicide in general?

Like Mexico, the Middle East, Russia, Brazil?

Or Switzerland, Finland, Sweden, Norway, France? 

Yeah, keep pushing that we can solve everything because getting rid of guns would be a magic bullet.


Yeah that's exactly what I argued.   Getting rid of guns would result in a utopian society.  You know what, you're right.  lets stockpile as many deadly weapons as possible.  That will make everyone a lot safer.

Jesus.

What are your 'common sense' measures? Or are you just mad that there are a ton of countries with high gun ownership per capita with low murder/violence rates and that there are a ton of countries with low gun ownership per capita with high murder/violence rates which pokes holes in your 'mountains of evidence' argument?

Hey as long as we have the same regulations and training as those countries you listed, I am all for it.


which ones?
 
2013-04-23 11:18:49 AM

MichiganFTL: Chummer45: MichiganFTL: Chummer45: GanjSmokr: While this is stupid to try to blame pressure cookers for this situation, some don't feel it is stupid to try to blame guns for gun violence...  are there any other situations that people try to blame on objects instead of the people who used those objects or is it just guns?


Have you ever considered that this is a strawman argument, and that the point of gun control isn't to "blame" guns for violence, but to take common-sense measures to reduce the prevalence and availability of guns in our society?   Have you ever considered the mountains of evidence that countries with strict gun regulation have dramatically lower rates of gun violence and homicide in general?

Like Mexico, the Middle East, Russia, Brazil?

Or Switzerland, Finland, Sweden, Norway, France? 

Yeah, keep pushing that we can solve everything because getting rid of guns would be a magic bullet.


Yeah that's exactly what I argued.   Getting rid of guns would result in a utopian society.  You know what, you're right.  lets stockpile as many deadly weapons as possible.  That will make everyone a lot safer.

Jesus.

What are your 'common sense' measures? Or are you just mad that there are a ton of countries with high gun ownership per capita with low murder/violence rates and that there are a ton of countries with low gun ownership per capita with high murder/violence rates which pokes holes in your 'mountains of evidence' argument?


Look, I'm not here to get into the weeds on a stupid internet argument with you (that you have no doubt spent hours on gun forums prepping for).   My original statement was correct when you look at western, industrialized nations that are similar to the U.S.  Looking at those statistics, objectively, leads to the conclusion that less guns = less violent crime.

The United States is a massive outlier when it comes to per capita gun ownership, and a huge outlier when it comes to per capita gun homicides.  You can sit here and pretend that "correlation does not equal causation" in this instance all you want, but the bottom line is that I can't have a rational discussion with you, because you're clearly way too impassioned in your defense of unregulated gun ownership, and have already labeled me as a "gun control advocate."

I guess if you can rest easy knowing that your hobby is protected, while thousands of Americans are killed or wounded thanks in no small part to the huge availability of guns in our country, then so be it.

I just hope you realize that you're caught up in a hugely profitable political/industrial machine that has gotten so good, that it convinced its members to buy huge amounts of guns, ammo, and accessories in response to the brutal shooting of two dozen or so elementary school kids.  And the best part?  The NRA/industry group convinced all of its members that they had no choice but to spend all of that money in donations and purchases, because the "enemy" (i.e., gun control advocates) left them no choice.
 
2013-04-23 11:19:11 AM

Frank N Stein: Car_Ramrod: Frank N Stein: Car_Ramrod: Frank N Stein: Car_Ramrod: TerminalEchoes: according to Obama's exact words

Just reminding everyone that you're a liar. You know people can use the internet to look things up, right?

"If even one child's life can be saved, then we need to act"

It's on the White House website.

That's not what TE was referring to.

Nevertheless, it is what Obama believes. Why else would he have it on his website?

Well ignoring the fact that the person I was responding to was lying, which was the point of my post, why would Obama talk about the need to stop children from dying due to guns, in remarks specifically discussing gun violence? Probably because he's not an asshole.

So do you support any measure that would prevent just one child from dying?


You really shouldn't telegraph your talking points so much. "We need to act" does not mean "Let's just do anything for shiats and giggles". What is hard to understand about that? I believe there are steps we can take to reduce gun violence while still allowing responsible people to enjoy their 2nd Amendment rights. I would need to see individual suggestions before I give them my support. Just because gun nuts don't want any regulations, doesn't mean I want every regulation.

Do you think nothing can/should be done? That everything is perfect as is? That there is no policy or regulation that might help address gun violence?
 
2013-04-23 11:19:27 AM

Frank N Stein: Car_Ramrod: Frank N Stein: Car_Ramrod: Frank N Stein: Car_Ramrod: TerminalEchoes: according to Obama's exact words

Just reminding everyone that you're a liar. You know people can use the internet to look things up, right?

"If even one child's life can be saved, then we need to act"

It's on the White House website.

That's not what TE was referring to.

Nevertheless, it is what Obama believes. Why else would he have it on his website?

Well ignoring the fact that the person I was responding to was lying, which was the point of my post, why would Obama talk about the need to stop children from dying due to guns, in remarks specifically discussing gun violence? Probably because he's not an asshole.

So do you support any measure that would prevent just one child from dying?


::Bud Nippers:: It's not possible to prevent every kid from dying prematurely, things like disease, neglect, abuse, and just plain old stupidity will see to that.  However, as a society, we have a responsibility to try to prevent kids from dying prematurely, so we place strict regulations on food, provide health insurance and nutrition assistance to children, engineer strict building codes so kids don't fall off stuff or can't climb over it, and use PSAs as well as harsh punishments for child abuse.  How does this relate to guns?  Well, a few months ago, 20 kids were wiped out in an instant by a person with a particularly lethal firearm.  One or two and we might write it off to a horrific accident, or a horrible murderer, but 20?  That doesn't just happen.  Therefore, it is understandable, responsible even to take steps that could prevent a similar scenario, just like we do in other aspects of society.
 
2013-04-23 11:22:12 AM

Tomahawk513: How does this relate to guns? Well, a few months ago, 20 kids were wiped out in an instant by a person with a particularly lethal firearm.


By "particularly lethal" do you mean "semi-automatic"?  Just wondering.
 
2013-04-23 11:22:41 AM

CPennypacker: GanjSmokr: CPennypacker: GanjSmokr:

I asked you this once in a previous thread, and you stopped talking to me... what amount of children killed by guns will be "acceptable" to you?

Why does it have to be a specific number? Can we agree that it is too high right now and work to reduce it? Or does that idea remain invalid unless I tell you that I want to reduce the number of murdered kids x%. Cuz if I have to pick a reduction percentage I want it would be 100%, but we have to be realistic.

I want to know because I'd like to know when there will be enough laws for you to be satisfied.

If, as you just said, you want it to be a 100% reduction, then there will never be enough laws for you and you'll never be satisfied with the situation.  Thanks for being honest here at least.

Are you saying you're ok with kids dying?


For the record, I'm not OK with kids dying in general.

I'm fine with preventing the deaths of children.  As long as you are actually doing something that will prevent the deaths of children.  IMO, most of the proposed  knee-jerk reactionary law changes will do nothing to do that and then you'll want more laws because we didn't reduce the number of children killed with the first new set of laws that was passed.  When does that end?

/for some people, it will only end with the repeal of the 2nd
 
2013-04-23 11:22:57 AM
It would be absurd for someone to propose a pressure cooker ban, pressure cooker regulations, or pressure cooker registration, so it's equally absurd for anyone to propose similar things for guns, which are the exact same thing!

Guns are just metal things, like any other thing made of metal.  We don't regulate spoons!  Why would we regulate guns?

It's crazy that some people in here don't understand this incredibly convincing and persuasive argument.
 
2013-04-23 11:24:24 AM
Also, to everyone who says "guns aren't as regulated as cars or ::insert object here::", I think you'll find that there are a TON of regulations, both federal and state on guns right now.

For instance, just at the federal level, there are:

NFA 1934, Omnibus CC & SSA 1968, GCA of 1968, FOPA 1986, GFSZA 1990, Brady Handgun VPA 1993, PoLCiAA. Throw in all of the state laws on top of that and you'd be surprised they are pretty regulated as is. Not saying there's not room for improvement, but don't believe people who say there's no regulation to firearms in this country.
 
2013-04-23 11:24:52 AM

GoldSpider: Tomahawk513: How does this relate to guns? Well, a few months ago, 20 kids were wiped out in an instant by a person with a particularly lethal firearm.

By "particularly lethal" do you mean "semi-automatic"?  Just wondering.



Yeah seriously.  An assault rifle is impossible to define, so I want to bait you into saying something that is technically incorrect so that I can accuse you of trying to ban something you don't even understand.
 
2013-04-23 11:25:01 AM

GanjSmokr: CPennypacker: GanjSmokr: CPennypacker: GanjSmokr:

I asked you this once in a previous thread, and you stopped talking to me... what amount of children killed by guns will be "acceptable" to you?

Why does it have to be a specific number? Can we agree that it is too high right now and work to reduce it? Or does that idea remain invalid unless I tell you that I want to reduce the number of murdered kids x%. Cuz if I have to pick a reduction percentage I want it would be 100%, but we have to be realistic.

I want to know because I'd like to know when there will be enough laws for you to be satisfied.

If, as you just said, you want it to be a 100% reduction, then there will never be enough laws for you and you'll never be satisfied with the situation.  Thanks for being honest here at least.

Are you saying you're ok with kids dying?

For the record, I'm not OK with kids dying in general.

I'm fine with preventing the deaths of children.  As long as you are actually doing something that will prevent the deaths of children.  IMO, most of the proposed  knee-jerk reactionary law changes will do nothing to do that and then you'll want more laws because we didn't reduce the number of children killed with the first new set of laws that was passed.  When does that end?

/for some people, it will only end with the repeal of the 2nd


We could start with the background checks that had wide support but died anyway because one of the two major political parties in this country serve the gun lobby over their own constituents
 
2013-04-23 11:26:47 AM

MichiganFTL: Also, to everyone who says "guns aren't as regulated as cars or ::insert object here::", I think you'll find that there are a TON of regulations, both federal and state on guns right now.

For instance, just at the federal level, there are:

NFA 1934, Omnibus CC & SSA 1968, GCA of 1968, FOPA 1986, GFSZA 1990, Brady Handgun VPA 1993, PoLCiAA. Throw in all of the state laws on top of that and you'd be surprised they are pretty regulated as is. Not saying there's not room for improvement, but don't believe people who say there's no regulation to firearms in this country.



Yes, and the NRA is constantly working to undermine these laws.  This is the problem I have with most pro-NRA gun owners.  They're willing to ignore all the harm the NRA is doing because, in their mind, the NRA's overall goal of "protecting against gun confiscation" is a noble one.

That, and the fact that the NRA is a corporate whore lobbying group with a borderline cult-like following.
 
2013-04-23 11:28:20 AM

MichiganFTL: jrodr018: MichiganFTL: Chummer45: MichiganFTL: Chummer45: GanjSmokr: While this is stupid to try to blame pressure cookers for this situation, some don't feel it is stupid to try to blame guns for gun violence...  are there any other situations that people try to blame on objects instead of the people who used those objects or is it just guns?


Have you ever considered that this is a strawman argument, and that the point of gun control isn't to "blame" guns for violence, but to take common-sense measures to reduce the prevalence and availability of guns in our society?   Have you ever considered the mountains of evidence that countries with strict gun regulation have dramatically lower rates of gun violence and homicide in general?

Like Mexico, the Middle East, Russia, Brazil?

Or Switzerland, Finland, Sweden, Norway, France? 

Yeah, keep pushing that we can solve everything because getting rid of guns would be a magic bullet.


Yeah that's exactly what I argued.   Getting rid of guns would result in a utopian society.  You know what, you're right.  lets stockpile as many deadly weapons as possible.  That will make everyone a lot safer.

Jesus.

What are your 'common sense' measures? Or are you just mad that there are a ton of countries with high gun ownership per capita with low murder/violence rates and that there are a ton of countries with low gun ownership per capita with high murder/violence rates which pokes holes in your 'mountains of evidence' argument?

Hey as long as we have the same regulations and training as those countries you listed, I am all for it.

which ones?


I am sure you know these, but I will list them after a brief google search:

Switzerland: Conscripted militia (military gun training)
Finland: Firearms Act 1998 (individuals HAVE to demonstrate a valid reason to have guns)
Sweden: Vapenlagen law 1996, all permits have to be obtained from the police

I can keep going, but I am sure you knew all of these. Study it out.
 
2013-04-23 11:29:55 AM

GoldSpider: Tomahawk513: How does this relate to guns? Well, a few months ago, 20 kids were wiped out in an instant by a person with a particularly lethal firearm.

By "particularly lethal" do you mean "semi-automatic"?  Just wondering.


Specifically, I mean
1) a fairly easy to handle (as opposed to a longer or heavier rifle)
2) semi-automatic weapon with a (as opposed to pump action, lever action, bolt action, etc.)
3) detachable magazine of (vs fixed)
4) 20-30 rounds.  (vs 5-8 in a revolver, 10-15 in most handguns, 8 or so in a shotgun, etc.)

Really it's a combination of those things that makes one weapon more lethal than another.
 
2013-04-23 11:31:26 AM

jrodr018: MichiganFTL: jrodr018: MichiganFTL: Chummer45: MichiganFTL: Chummer45: GanjSmokr: While this is stupid to try to blame pressure cookers for this situation, some don't feel it is stupid to try to blame guns for gun violence...  are there any other situations that people try to blame on objects instead of the people who used those objects or is it just guns?


Have you ever considered that this is a strawman argument, and that the point of gun control isn't to "blame" guns for violence, but to take common-sense measures to reduce the prevalence and availability of guns in our society?   Have you ever considered the mountains of evidence that countries with strict gun regulation have dramatically lower rates of gun violence and homicide in general?

Like Mexico, the Middle East, Russia, Brazil?

Or Switzerland, Finland, Sweden, Norway, France? 

Yeah, keep pushing that we can solve everything because getting rid of guns would be a magic bullet.


Yeah that's exactly what I argued.   Getting rid of guns would result in a utopian society.  You know what, you're right.  lets stockpile as many deadly weapons as possible.  That will make everyone a lot safer.

Jesus.

What are your 'common sense' measures? Or are you just mad that there are a ton of countries with high gun ownership per capita with low murder/violence rates and that there are a ton of countries with low gun ownership per capita with high murder/violence rates which pokes holes in your 'mountains of evidence' argument?

Hey as long as we have the same regulations and training as those countries you listed, I am all for it.

which ones?

I am sure you know these, but I will list them after a brief google search:

Switzerland: Conscripted militia (military gun training)
Finland: Firearms Act 1998 (individuals HAVE to demonstrate a valid reason to have guns)
Sweden: Vapenlagen law 1996, all permits have to be obtained from the police

I can keep going, but I am sure you knew all of these. Study it out.


While not opposed to any of these, Switzerland won't happen here. Sweden's is reasonable, but what's the difference between that and ours NICS system which does a background check (I don't see a policeman being able to profile a person perfectly), Finland's would be reasonable, depending on what reasons were given (although this would also probably not make it because of the 2nd amendment).
 
2013-04-23 11:34:53 AM

Chummer45: Yeah seriously. An assault rifle is impossible to define, so I want to bait you into saying something that is technically incorrect so that I can accuse you of trying to ban something you don't even understand.


Not my intent at all.  I think the only way to significantly lower gun violence is to ban and confiscate semi-automatic pistols.
 
2013-04-23 11:36:05 AM

Dimensio: vpb: Gun nuts take that "we can't have gun control because other things kill people too" argument seriously.
I don't think it's trolling.

Gun ban advocates claim that pistol grips and collapsing stocks enhance the lethality of a rifle. I know that it is not trolling; they really are that stupid.


Technically, they make the gun viable in scenarios that they would otherwise be unwieldy -- like indoors or in close quarters.   It doesn't make the bullets any more deadly but it does make the weapon more deadly.
 
2013-04-23 11:36:11 AM

GoldSpider: Chummer45: Yeah seriously. An assault rifle is impossible to define, so I want to bait you into saying something that is technically incorrect so that I can accuse you of trying to ban something you don't even understand.

Not my intent at all.  I think the only way to significantly lower gun violence is to ban and confiscate semi-automatic pistols.


That would actually statistically have a lot more impact.
 
2013-04-23 11:38:01 AM

PopularFront: Dimensio: vpb: Gun nuts take that "we can't have gun control because other things kill people too" argument seriously.
I don't think it's trolling.

Gun ban advocates claim that pistol grips and collapsing stocks enhance the lethality of a rifle. I know that it is not trolling; they really are that stupid.

Technically, they make the gun viable in scenarios that they would otherwise be unwieldy -- like indoors or in close quarters.   It doesn't make the bullets any more deadly but it does make the weapon more deadly.


If that was their big concern, they would have grabbed a bullpup.
 
2013-04-23 11:38:47 AM

MichiganFTL: That would actually statistically have a lot more impact.


Much more so than any of the other ideas being floated.  The problem is that such an effort would likely not pass Constitutional muster in its current form, and the idea of amending it is unfortunately a non-starter.

So we're left with largely symbolic measures like background checks and AWB.
 
2013-04-23 11:42:26 AM
When used correctly, a gun results in a dead person/thing.  When used correctly, a pressure cooker results in dinner.
 
2013-04-23 11:44:07 AM

MichiganFTL: jrodr018: MichiganFTL: jrodr018: MichiganFTL: Chummer45: MichiganFTL: Chummer45: GanjSmokr: While this is stupid to try to blame pressure cookers for this situation, some don't feel it is stupid to try to blame guns for gun violence...  are there any other situations that people try to blame on objects instead of the people who used those objects or is it just guns?


Have you ever considered that this is a strawman argument, and that the point of gun control isn't to "blame" guns for violence, but to take common-sense measures to reduce the prevalence and availability of guns in our society?   Have you ever considered the mountains of evidence that countries with strict gun regulation have dramatically lower rates of gun violence and homicide in general?

Like Mexico, the Middle East, Russia, Brazil?

Or Switzerland, Finland, Sweden, Norway, France? 

Yeah, keep pushing that we can solve everything because getting rid of guns would be a magic bullet.


Yeah that's exactly what I argued.   Getting rid of guns would result in a utopian society.  You know what, you're right.  lets stockpile as many deadly weapons as possible.  That will make everyone a lot safer.

Jesus.

What are your 'common sense' measures? Or are you just mad that there are a ton of countries with high gun ownership per capita with low murder/violence rates and that there are a ton of countries with low gun ownership per capita with high murder/violence rates which pokes holes in your 'mountains of evidence' argument?

Hey as long as we have the same regulations and training as those countries you listed, I am all for it.

which ones?

I am sure you know these, but I will list them after a brief google search:

Switzerland: Conscripted militia (military gun training)
Finland: Firearms Act 1998 (individuals HAVE to demonstrate a valid reason to have guns)
Sweden: Vapenlagen law 1996, all permits have to be obtained from the police

I can keep going, but I am sure you knew all of these. Study it out ...


So I am not sure what your intentions are, and you may have the best intentions in the world, but why would you even compare them to our specific situation then? Even Sweden has a far more strict gun control, you need to be a citizen in good standing (maybe do a check on a person background, let's call it a "personal background check"), I do not need to be part of a hunting club for at least 6 months,etc. Sorry for the snark, but I hate it when people bring out these countries and make them out to be a gun utopia, it is a gun utopia because people are actually responsible with their weapons. But what the hell do I know?
 
2013-04-23 11:46:01 AM

vpb: Gun nuts take that "we can't have gun control because other things kill people too" argument seriously.
I don't think it's trolling.


The argument is that it's not the guns that are killing people. It's the crazy people behind them. Take away a crazy person's gun and they'll still manage to kill people with other objects. Let's work on reducing the crazy person problem instead of the object problem.
 
2013-04-23 11:47:29 AM
I don't get this, it wasn't the pressure cooker that killed folks, it was the explosives, and those are already pretty controlled.  After all, they had to resort to black powder or smokeless, as oppose to something more deadly like dynamite, CD, ANFO, etc.

And don't explosives have markers these days to better track sources?

If you wanted to subject guns to the same amount of regulation, I don't think many gun saftey folks would object.
 
2013-04-23 11:47:56 AM

jrodr018: So I am not sure what your intentions are, and you may have the best intentions in the world, but why would you even compare them to our specific situation then? Even Sweden has a far more strict gun control, you need to be a citizen in good standing (maybe do a check on a person background, let's call it a "personal background check"), I do not need to be part of a hunting club for at least 6 months,etc. Sorry for the snark, but I hate it when people bring out these countries and make them out to be a gun utopia, it is a gun utopia because people are actually responsible with their weapons. But what the hell do I know?


That's the nail on the head, people are responsible with their weapons. What makes them responsible? That's what we need to focus on. Is there legislation? Mental health? Societal Influence? Economic influence? Maybe we're looking in the wrong place.

I compared them in response to an argument:

jrodr018: that countries with strict gun regulation have dramatically lower rates of gun violence and homicide in general

 
2013-04-23 11:48:05 AM

Lando Lincoln: vpb: Gun nuts take that "we can't have gun control because other things kill people too" argument seriously.
I don't think it's trolling.

The argument is that it's not the guns that are killing people. It's the crazy people behind them. Take away a crazy person's gun and they'll still manage to kill people with other objects. Let's work on reducing the crazy person problem instead of the object problem.


They kill a lot less people, which is kind of the goal
 
2013-04-23 11:51:15 AM

MichiganFTL: PopularFront: Dimensio: vpb: Gun nuts take that "we can't have gun control because other things kill people too" argument seriously.
I don't think it's trolling.

Gun ban advocates claim that pistol grips and collapsing stocks enhance the lethality of a rifle. I know that it is not trolling; they really are that stupid.

Technically, they make the gun viable in scenarios that they would otherwise be unwieldy -- like indoors or in close quarters.   It doesn't make the bullets any more deadly but it does make the weapon more deadly.

If that was their big concern, they would have grabbed a bullpup.


I'm surprised it wasn't on their list.   Their lack of technical knowledge about guns has certainly been an obstacle for them.  I think it's disingenuous, however, to pretend that certain guns aren't better for mass shootings than others.
 
2013-04-23 11:54:30 AM

CPennypacker: Lando Lincoln: vpb: Gun nuts take that "we can't have gun control because other things kill people too" argument seriously.
I don't think it's trolling.

The argument is that it's not the guns that are killing people. It's the crazy people behind them. Take away a crazy person's gun and they'll still manage to kill people with other objects. Let's work on reducing the crazy person problem instead of the object problem.

They kill a lot less people, which is kind of the goal


Bombs, arson and crashes are better for widespread indiscriminate killing. Even a shouted word can easily kill more people in the proper circumstance than a lone madman with an AR-15.

Is an AR-15 good for defending from the three home invaders in your living room? Yes.

Is it ideal for killing as many people as possible, as quickly as possible? No.

This is question we have to propose for our mass murder/spree killer, what tool is 'ideal'. You cannot judge different tools by different standards and call it equitable, or claim that a gun is more efficient than anything else without some reasoning behind it. Here, let me show you a demonstration using some real-world examples.

Virginia Tech massacre.
Perpetrator: Seung-Hui Cho, a physically healthy senior at Virginia Tech.
Resources: Two handguns, over 170 rounds fired.
Planning Elements: Brought along chains to seal doors to prevent escape/police response.
Death toll: 32 (5.3 bullets per death)

Daegu Metro Fire
Perpetrator: Kim Dae-han, a 56 year-old unemployed former taxi driver who had suffered a stroke that left him partly paralyzed.
Resources: Two milk cartons of gasoline, a lighter.
Planning Elements: None.
Death Toll: 198

There we go: whats more efficient for killing a bunch of people, some pistols or a jug of gasoline?

Lets take it to the theoretical, and assume a pair of people that want to kill as many people as possible as quickly as possible, with similar planning and execution resources, including time, money, and intelligence.

Firearms:
Planning: Seek a location free of possible threat, like a school. Find a suitable target that can be isolated to prevent escape/interference. Discover time and approach methods most efficient to entrap as many people as possible and render them helpless for execution.
Resources: Chains for door securing, guns, magazines, ammunition, transport.
Expected Death Toll: 6-70
Examples: Seung-Hui Cho, Brevik.

Arson:
Planning: Many options - a possible target is nightclubs.
Resources: Chains, pipes (for wedging doors<--->alley wall), flammable materials (may also be found on site). Transport.
Expected Death Toll: 7-309 Examples: Kiss nightclub fire, The Station nightclub fire
Bonus: Greater chance of escaping police custody and repeating actions.
 
2013-04-23 11:54:59 AM

CPennypacker: Lando Lincoln: vpb: Gun nuts take that "we can't have gun control because other things kill people too" argument seriously.
I don't think it's trolling.

The argument is that it's not the guns that are killing people. It's the crazy people behind them. Take away a crazy person's gun and they'll still manage to kill people with other objects. Let's work on reducing the crazy person problem instead of the object problem.

They kill a lot less people, which is kind of the goal


Reducing the number of crazed and dispossessed people reduces the number of people they kill just the same as reducing the effectiveness of each individual crazed and dispossessed.
 
2013-04-23 11:55:47 AM

PopularFront: MichiganFTL: PopularFront: Dimensio: vpb: Gun nuts take that "we can't have gun control because other things kill people too" argument seriously.
I don't think it's trolling.

Gun ban advocates claim that pistol grips and collapsing stocks enhance the lethality of a rifle. I know that it is not trolling; they really are that stupid.

Technically, they make the gun viable in scenarios that they would otherwise be unwieldy -- like indoors or in close quarters.   It doesn't make the bullets any more deadly but it does make the weapon more deadly.

If that was their big concern, they would have grabbed a bullpup.

I'm surprised it wasn't on their list.   Their lack of technical knowledge about guns has certainly been an obstacle for them.  I think it's disingenuous, however, to pretend that certain guns aren't better for mass shootings than others.


Well, thankfully, most of the people who've gone on mass shootings have been about as proficient in firearms as a gun control advocate (poor equipment choice, inability to clear a jam, etc.), it's saved lives.
 
2013-04-23 11:58:14 AM

MichiganFTL: jrodr018: So I am not sure what your intentions are, and you may have the best intentions in the world, but why would you even compare them to our specific situation then? Even Sweden has a far more strict gun control, you need to be a citizen in good standing (maybe do a check on a person background, let's call it a "personal background check"), I do not need to be part 

I compared them in response to an argument:

jrodr018: that countries with strict gun regulation have dramatically lower rates of gun violence and homicide in general


Please do not quote me on something I did not say. Feel free to check back on the thread. An actual serious discussion on all of the issues you mentioned is warranted, but, when the NRA side counterargument is the picture of a pressure cooker, man, come on, really? Why can we talk about actually licensing people, like all of the countries you listed? how about carrying weapons in safes, like all the countries you listed? That is thrown out of the discussion as soon as is brought up. THAT is the problem with gun debate. As far as I know, on the gun control side, only crazies advocate that ALL weapons are taken away, because most reasonable people understand we have that right and that right cannot be taken away.
 
2013-04-23 11:58:20 AM

Lord_Baull: Really? Because last time I checked, pressure cookers weren't specifically manufactured to mortally wound stuff.


Neither were these.

http://cdn102.iofferphoto.com/img/item/286/189/92/o_DCP03365.JPG
 
2013-04-23 12:00:10 PM

Ned Stark: CPennypacker: Lando Lincoln: vpb: Gun nuts take that "we can't have gun control because other things kill people too" argument seriously.
I don't think it's trolling.

The argument is that it's not the guns that are killing people. It's the crazy people behind them. Take away a crazy person's gun and they'll still manage to kill people with other objects. Let's work on reducing the crazy person problem instead of the object problem.

They kill a lot less people, which is kind of the goal

Reducing the number of crazed and dispossessed people reduces the number of people they kill just the same as reducing the effectiveness of each individual crazed and dispossessed.


How would you say we do that?

Oh I know! We could check a person's background before they buy a gun to see if they are crazed or dispossessed. That's a great idea!
 
2013-04-23 12:00:32 PM

Lando Lincoln: Let's work on reducing the crazy person problem instead of the object problem.


If we reduce the fetishization of guns in this country we can also solve the problem of gun violence. There's a stark difference between a passionate hobbyist and some gun nut whose entire being is defined by guns and gun ownership. It's culturally ingrained into a lot of people that their status and worth as a person is dependent on their ability to possess and shoot firearms for a lot of people.

It's the opposite side of the coin that Obama mentioned a few years ago about people clinging to guns and gods. It's not just that somebody wants to make background checks mandatory. It's that in this scary and changing world these people are holding tight to whatever they can to make sense of it. So when somebody proposes making background checks mandatory - because two dozen five-year-olds were viciously murdered - it's an assault on their core belief structure. Rationality has no part in it because these people aren't rational.

They're scared children - much like those kindergarteners felt as they begged for their lives - clinging to a life raft in a world that has no place for them.
 
2013-04-23 12:01:04 PM

vpb: Gun nuts take that "we can't have gun control because other things kill people too" argument seriously.
I don't think it's trolling.


It's such a specious, worthless argument to boot. Anyone with a shred of critical thinking ability sees that it's wrong on its face.

Cars are not guns. Bombs are not guns. Kitchen knives are not guns. They're not even apples and oranges...more like apples and bricks.
 
2013-04-23 12:01:10 PM

plewis: When used correctly, a gun results in a dead person/thing.


Far from true.
 
2013-04-23 12:03:51 PM

CPennypacker: Oh I know! We could check a person's background before they buy a gun to see if they are crazed or dispossessed. That's a great idea!


Again, that doesn't do anything to reduce the crazy person problem.

Why are we so goddamned afraid to try to tackle mental health problems?
 
2013-04-23 12:04:32 PM

jrodr018: MichiganFTL: jrodr018: So I am not sure what your intentions are, and you may have the best intentions in the world, but why would you even compare them to our specific situation then? Even Sweden has a far more strict gun control, you need to be a citizen in good standing (maybe do a check on a person background, let's call it a "personal background check"), I do not need to be part 

I compared them in response to an argument:

jrodr018: that countries with strict gun regulation have dramatically lower rates of gun violence and homicide in general

Please do not quote me on something I did not say. Feel free to check back on the thread. An actual serious discussion on all of the issues you mentioned is warranted, but, when the NRA side counterargument is the picture of a pressure cooker, man, come on, really? Why can we talk about actually licensing people, like all of the countries you listed? how about carrying weapons in safes, like all the countries you listed? That is thrown out of the discussion as soon as is brought up. THAT is the problem with gun debate. As far as I know, on the gun control side, only crazies advocate that ALL weapons are taken away, because most reasonable people understand we have that right and that right cannot be taken away.


I apologize, that was Chummer45, not you. I just clicked the quote button too quick, my mistake. The NICS system and 'licensing' people are only as good as the information put into them. Without adequate mental health reporting/intervention (difficult on the intervention part), we'll still have a few slip through the cracks, so that needs to be tied up too. The NICS needs to have a civilian version where I can put in a person's Name, DOB, DL# and get a simple yes/no to be able to buy a gun so I know who I'm selling to is legit.

I don't know how we can carry weapons in safes, so I'm lost on that one, my safe is like 2,000 lbs empty.
 
2013-04-23 12:05:17 PM

CPennypacker: Ned Stark: CPennypacker: Lando Lincoln: vpb: Gun nuts take that "we can't have gun control because other things kill people too" argument seriously.
I don't think it's trolling.

The argument is that it's not the guns that are killing people. It's the crazy people behind them. Take away a crazy person's gun and they'll still manage to kill people with other objects. Let's work on reducing the crazy person problem instead of the object problem.

They kill a lot less people, which is kind of the goal

Reducing the number of crazed and dispossessed people reduces the number of people they kill just the same as reducing the effectiveness of each individual crazed and dispossessed.

How would you say we do that?

Oh I know! We could check a person's background before they buy a gun to see if they are crazed or dispossessed. That's a great idea!


I think what he's saying is that getting those who need it proper mental health treatment would have a similar result.  In response to both of you, why not do both?  We both agree tackling the situation from one angle is just as effective as the other, so why not do both?  Why not require the buyer to provide proof of a recent gun safety course as well as an all-clear from at least two therapists of psychiatrists?  Just a thought.
 
2013-04-23 12:05:42 PM

MichiganFTL: jrodr018: MichiganFTL: jrodr018: So I am not sure what your intentions are, and you may have the best intentions in the world, but why would you even compare them to our specific situation then? Even Sweden has a far more strict gun control, you need to be a citizen in good standing (maybe do a check on a person background, let's call it a "personal background check"), I do not need to be part 

I compared them in response to an argument:

jrodr018: that countries with strict gun regulation have dramatically lower rates of gun violence and homicide in general

Please do not quote me on something I did not say. Feel free to check back on the thread. An actual serious discussion on all of the issues you mentioned is warranted, but, when the NRA side counterargument is the picture of a pressure cooker, man, come on, really? Why can we talk about actually licensing people, like all of the countries you listed? how about carrying weapons in safes, like all the countries you listed? That is thrown out of the discussion as soon as is brought up. THAT is the problem with gun debate. As far as I know, on the gun control side, only crazies advocate that ALL weapons are taken away, because most reasonable people understand we have that right and that right cannot be taken away.

I apologize, that was Chummer45, not you. I just clicked the quote button too quick, my mistake. The NICS system and 'licensing' people are only as good as the information put into them. Without adequate mental health reporting/intervention (difficult on the intervention part), we'll still have a few slip through the cracks, so that needs to be tied up too. The NICS needs to have a civilian version where I can put in a person's Name, DOB, DL# and get a simple yes/no to be able to buy a gun so I know who I'm selling to is legit.

I don't know how we can carry weapons in safes, so I'm lost on that one, my safe is like 2,000 lbs empty.


Feel free to read up on how the countries you listed do it.
 
2013-04-23 12:08:01 PM

Lando Lincoln: Why are we so goddamned afraid to try to tackle mental health problems?


Because the puritanical, prosperity gospel-ish society in which we inhabit states that good things come to good people and bad things happen to bad people, which leads to a great many people believing that mental illness is a moral failure instead of a medical issue. Compound that mentality with the belief that any increase in taxes is an abomination unto us as a society and you have both those with mental illness keeping quiet about it and those who don't possess the means to treat themselves being left to their own devices.
 
2013-04-23 12:09:05 PM

Tomahawk513: CPennypacker: Ned Stark: CPennypacker: Lando Lincoln: vpb: Gun nuts take that "we can't have gun control because other things kill people too" argument seriously.
I don't think it's trolling.

The argument is that it's not the guns that are killing people. It's the crazy people behind them. Take away a crazy person's gun and they'll still manage to kill people with other objects. Let's work on reducing the crazy person problem instead of the object problem.

They kill a lot less people, which is kind of the goal

Reducing the number of crazed and dispossessed people reduces the number of people they kill just the same as reducing the effectiveness of each individual crazed and dispossessed.

How would you say we do that?

Oh I know! We could check a person's background before they buy a gun to see if they are crazed or dispossessed. That's a great idea!

I think what he's saying is that getting those who need it proper mental health treatment would have a similar result.  In response to both of you, why not do both?  We both agree tackling the situation from one angle is just as effective as the other, so why not do both?  Why not require the buyer to provide proof of a recent gun safety course as well as an all-clear from at least two therapists of psychiatrists?  Just a thought.


I don't think any gun control advocate is against providing better mental healthcare for Americans. The way those lines fall, its ironically the people shouting about how mental health is the problem that want to reduce the care people get, be it medicare/medicaid or healthcare reform in general. They don't actually care about mental health issues, they just want a scapegoat.
 
2013-04-23 12:09:20 PM

jrodr018: MichiganFTL: jrodr018: MichiganFTL: jrodr018: So I am not sure what your intentions are, and you may have the best intentions in the world, but why would you even compare them to our specific situation then? Even Sweden has a far more strict gun control, you need to be a citizen in good standing (maybe do a check on a person background, let's call it a "personal background check"), I do not need to be part 

I compared them in response to an argument:

jrodr018: that countries with strict gun regulation have dramatically lower rates of gun violence and homicide in general

Please do not quote me on something I did not say. Feel free to check back on the thread. An actual serious discussion on all of the issues you mentioned is warranted, but, when the NRA side counterargument is the picture of a pressure cooker, man, come on, really? Why can we talk about actually licensing people, like all of the countries you listed? how about carrying weapons in safes, like all the countries you listed? That is thrown out of the discussion as soon as is brought up. THAT is the problem with gun debate. As far as I know, on the gun control side, only crazies advocate that ALL weapons are taken away, because most reasonable people understand we have that right and that right cannot be taken away.

I apologize, that was Chummer45, not you. I just clicked the quote button too quick, my mistake. The NICS system and 'licensing' people are only as good as the information put into them. Without adequate mental health reporting/intervention (difficult on the intervention part), we'll still have a few slip through the cracks, so that needs to be tied up too. The NICS needs to have a civilian version where I can put in a person's Name, DOB, DL# and get a simple yes/no to be able to buy a gun so I know who I'm selling to is legit.

I don't know how we can carry weapons in safes, so I'm lost on that one, my safe is like 2,000 lbs empty.

Feel free to read up on how the countries you listed do ...


www.powermate.info

This just seems cumbersome, those crazy Swedes.
 
2013-04-23 12:11:46 PM

Tomahawk513: I think what he's saying is that getting those who need it proper mental health treatment would have a similar result. In response to both of you, why not do both? We both agree tackling the situation from one angle is just as effective as the other, so why not do both? Why not require the buyer to provide proof of a recent gun safety course as well as an all-clear from at least two therapists of psychiatrists? Just a thought.


Because it is a right. The state has to prove that it should be taken away from you. You do not have to prove that you deserve it.
 
2013-04-23 12:12:33 PM

MichiganFTL: jrodr018: MichiganFTL: jrodr018: So I am not sure what your intentions are, and you may have the best intentions in the world, but why would you even compare them to our specific situation then? Even Sweden has a far more strict gun control, you need to be a citizen in good standing (maybe do a check on a person background, let's call it a "personal background check"), I do not need to be part

I compared them in response to an argument:

jrodr018: that countries with strict gun regulation have dramatically lower rates of gun violence and homicide in general

Please do not quote me on something I did not say. Feel free to check back on the thread. An actual serious discussion on all of the issues you mentioned is warranted, but, when the NRA side counterargument is the picture of a pressure cooker, man, come on, really? Why can we talk about actually licensing people, like all of the countries you listed? how about carrying weapons in safes, like all the countries you listed? That is thrown out of the discussion as soon as is brought up. THAT is the problem with gun debate. As far as I know, on the gun control side, only crazies advocate that ALL weapons are taken away, because most reasonable people understand we have that right and that right cannot be taken away.

I apologize, that was Chummer45, not you. I just clicked the quote button too quick, my mistake. The NICS system and 'licensing' people are only as good as the information put into them. Without adequate mental health reporting/intervention (difficult on the intervention part), we'll still have a few slip through the cracks, so that needs to be tied up too. The NICS needs to have a civilian version where I can put in a person's Name, DOB, DL# and get a simple yes/no to be able to buy a gun so I know who I'm selling to is legit.

I don't know how we can carry weapons in safes, so I'm lost on that one, my safe is like 2,000 lbs empty.


Agreed. Although I am not sure how we can regulate mental health, and I don not know we should. Seems like regulating free access to guns via licensing/training requirements would make me (on a personal level) feel a lot better. But at least would start a frank discussion.
 
2013-04-23 12:12:45 PM
I didn't know boiled corn was an armor piercing round.
Using a pressure cooker as a bomb: not used as intended
Using an assault rifle to kill people: used exactly as intended

I guess those affected by the Boston bombing should just "deal with it" as well?
 
2013-04-23 12:13:05 PM

Lando Lincoln: vpb: Gun nuts take that "we can't have gun control because other things kill people too" argument seriously.
I don't think it's trolling.

The argument is that it's not the guns that are killing people. It's the crazy people behind them. Take away a crazy person's gun and they'll still manage to kill people with other objects. Let's work on reducing the crazy person problem instead of the object problem.


Let's pretend a gun is like any other object first, that way your thoughts won't sound so simple minded.

Or the fact that other "objects" that are manufactured with the lethality of a gun are heavily regulated or not available at all.

Thank god the two brothers didn't just get a couple of ak's and a shiat load of ammo. If they had done that and just opened fire on opposites sides of the crowd they could have killed a lot more people. I'm selling my guns right now, prices are high and I'm tired of being associated with assholes.
 
2013-04-23 12:14:27 PM

The Stealth Hippopotamus: Because it is a right. The state has to prove that it should be taken away from you. You do not have to prove that you deserve it.


Tell that to all of the people who were disenfranchised in the past few years by Republican voter ID laws. Tell that to all of the people having to jump through incredible hoops to have an abortion because of Republican state legislatures. Why are guns the only thing people care about when it comes to constitutional rights?
 
2013-04-23 12:16:26 PM
Ha ha muzzle "break"

25.media.tumblr.com
 
2013-04-23 12:16:35 PM

CPennypacker: Ned Stark: CPennypacker: Lando Lincoln: vpb: Gun nuts take that "we can't have gun control because other things kill people too" argument seriously.
I don't think it's trolling.

The argument is that it's not the guns that are killing people. It's the crazy people behind them. Take away a crazy person's gun and they'll still manage to kill people with other objects. Let's work on reducing the crazy person problem instead of the object problem.

They kill a lot less people, which is kind of the goal

Reducing the number of crazed and dispossessed people reduces the number of people they kill just the same as reducing the effectiveness of each individual crazed and dispossessed.

How would you say we do that?

Oh I know! We could check a person's background before they buy a gun to see if they are crazed or dispossessed. That's a great idea!


That is definitely an effectiveness approach.

As to what I would reccomend, the drug war is the obvious elephant in the room when it comes to manufacturing outcasts. Legalize all that shiat. Whipe records.

Endemic poverty to. A higher minimum wage, slash the payroll tax, bigger welfare payouts, lots of other shiat.

Mental healthcare should be single payer. If someone feels like they are starting to lose their grip they shouldn't be wording about picking between help and groceries.
 
2013-04-23 12:16:45 PM

Bashar and Asma's Infinite Playlist: The Stealth Hippopotamus: Because it is a right. The state has to prove that it should be taken away from you. You do not have to prove that you deserve it.

Tell that to all of the people who were disenfranchised in the past few years by Republican voter ID laws. Tell that to all of the people having to jump through incredible hoops to have an abortion because of Republican state legislatures. Why are guns the only thing people care about when it comes to constitutional rights?


I dunno, I think recently we've seen people care a bit about that free speech, right to a trial, and that whole 'cruel and unusual punishment' thingy seems to get people all bitey.
 
2013-04-23 12:20:47 PM
kapaso:
Thank god the two brothers didn't just get a couple of ak's and a shiat load of ammo. If they had done that and just opened fire on opposites sides of the crowd they could have killed a lot more people. I'm selling my guns right now, prices are high and I'm tired of being associated with assholes.

Bombs, arson and crashes are better for widespread indiscriminate killing. Even a shouted word can easily kill more people in the proper circumstance than a lone madman with an AR-15.

Is an AR-15 good for defending from the three home invaders in your living room? Yes.

Is it ideal for killing as many people as possible, as quickly as possible? No.

This is question we have to propose for our mass murder/spree killer, what tool is 'ideal'. You cannot judge different tools by different standards and call it equitable, or claim that a gun is more efficient than anything else without some reasoning behind it. Here, let me show you a demonstration using some real-world examples.

Virginia Tech massacre.
Perpetrator: Seung-Hui Cho, a physically healthy senior at Virginia Tech.
Resources: Two handguns, over 170 rounds fired.
Planning Elements: Brought along chains to seal doors to prevent escape/police response.
Death toll: 32 (5.3 bullets per death)

Daegu Metro Fire
Perpetrator: Kim Dae-han, a 56 year-old unemployed former taxi driver who had suffered a stroke that left him partly paralyzed.
Resources: Two milk cartons of gasoline, a lighter.
Planning Elements: None.
Death Toll: 198

There we go: whats more efficient for killing a bunch of people, some pistols or a jug of gasoline?

Brevik, who pulled off about the most successful single perpetrator gun massacre after years of planning, didn't hit triple digits. Paralyzed stroke victims with no planning but milk cartons of gasoline hit triple digits easily.
 
2013-04-23 12:23:47 PM

Tomahawk513: CPennypacker: Ned Stark: CPennypacker: Lando Lincoln: vpb: Gun nuts take that "we can't have gun control because other things kill people too" argument seriously.
I don't think it's trolling.

The argument is that it's not the guns that are killing people. It's the crazy people behind them. Take away a crazy person's gun and they'll still manage to kill people with other objects. Let's work on reducing the crazy person problem instead of the object problem.

They kill a lot less people, which is kind of the goal

Reducing the number of crazed and dispossessed people reduces the number of people they kill just the same as reducing the effectiveness of each individual crazed and dispossessed.

How would you say we do that?

Oh I know! We could check a person's background before they buy a gun to see if they are crazed or dispossessed. That's a great idea!

I think what he's saying is that getting those who need it proper mental health treatment would have a similar result.  In response to both of you, why not do both?  We both agree tackling the situation from one angle is just as effective as the other, so why not do both?  Why not require the buyer to provide proof of a recent gun safety course as well as an all-clear from at least two therapists of psychiatrists?  Just a thought.


I absolutely object to the all clear from psychiatrists provision. It is a dangerous politicization of healthcare.

Mandated gun safty training sounds fine to me. I doubt its passable though.
 
2013-04-23 12:24:50 PM

PsyLord: [wsmv.images.worldnow.com image 489x322]

Evil, black.  ?!?!?!


wellsy.files.wordpress.com
 
2013-04-23 12:27:32 PM
Ned Stark:
I absolutely object to the all clear from psychiatrists provision. It is a dangerous politicization of healthcare.

Why not just make health care, including mental health, freely accessible. As in free.

Mandated gun safety training sounds fine to me. I doubt its passable though.

Just make it a mandated course in school. "Guns are not toys, Stop, leave, tell an adult" stuff in grade school, then safe handling and markmanship in middle and high school. Then everyone has the training.
 
2013-04-23 12:28:50 PM

BayouOtter: Ned Stark:
I absolutely object to the all clear from psychiatrists provision. It is a dangerous politicization of healthcare.

Why not just make health care, including mental health, freely accessible. As in free.

Mandated gun safety training sounds fine to me. I doubt its passable though.

Just make it a mandated course in school. "Guns are not toys, Stop, leave, tell an adult" stuff in grade school, then safe handling and markmanship in middle and high school. Then everyone has the training.


Worked on drugs/sex, will work on guns.

/kidding, I'm for that.
 
2013-04-23 12:31:48 PM
So he is saying guns should be regulated, licensed and investigated as stringently as explosives? That sounds fine, I wonder what made him leapfrog the gun control side of the debate and head deep into levels of regulation that have never been suggested in recent history.
 
2013-04-23 12:32:37 PM

BayouOtter: Why not just make health care, including mental health, freely accessible. As in free funded by tax revenues.


FTFY

BayouOtter: Just make it a mandated course in school. "Guns are not toys, Stop, leave, tell an adult" stuff in grade school, then safe handling and markmanship in middle and high school. Then everyone has the training.


I'm very OK with that.
 
2013-04-23 12:33:08 PM
i.imgur.com
 
2013-04-23 12:33:49 PM

BayouOtter: CPennypacker: Lando Lincoln: vpb: Gun nuts take that "we can't have gun control because other things kill people too" argument seriously.
I don't think it's trolling.

The argument is that it's not the guns that are killing people. It's the crazy people behind them. Take away a crazy person's gun and they'll still manage to kill people with other objects. Let's work on reducing the crazy person problem instead of the object problem.

They kill a lot less people, which is kind of the goal

Bombs, arson and crashes are better for widespread indiscriminate killing. Even a shouted word can easily kill more people in the proper circumstance than a lone madman with an AR-15.

Is an AR-15 good for defending from the three home invaders in your living room? Yes.

Is it ideal for killing as many people as possible, as quickly as possible? No.

This is question we have to propose for our mass murder/spree killer, what tool is 'ideal'. You cannot judge different tools by different standards and call it equitable, or claim that a gun is more efficient than anything else without some reasoning behind it. Here, let me show you a demonstration using some real-world examples.

Virginia Tech massacre.
Perpetrator: Seung-Hui Cho, a physically healthy senior at Virginia Tech.
Resources: Two handguns, over 170 rounds fired.
Planning Elements: Brought along chains to seal doors to prevent escape/police response.
Death toll: 32 (5.3 bullets per death)

Daegu Metro Fire
Perpetrator: Kim Dae-han, a 56 year-old unemployed former taxi driver who had suffered a stroke that left him partly paralyzed.
Resources: Two milk cartons of gasoline, a lighter.
Planning Elements: None.
Death Toll: 198

There we go: whats more efficient for killing a bunch of people, some pistols or a jug of gasoline?

Lets take it to the theoretical, and assume a pair of people that want to kill as many people as possible as quickly as possible, with similar planning and execution resources, including time, money, and i ...



It takes a pretty depraved mind to come up with an argument like this.
 
2013-04-23 12:36:34 PM

BayouOtter: Ned Stark:
I absolutely object to the all clear from psychiatrists provision. It is a dangerous politicization of healthcare.

Why not just make health care, including mental health, freely accessible. As in free.

Mandated gun safety training sounds fine to me. I doubt its passable though.

Just make it a mandated course in school. "Guns are not toys, Stop, leave, tell an adult" stuff in grade school, then safe handling and markmanship in middle and high school. Then everyone has the training.


1 yeah I said that up a few posts :)

2 we did this at my schools. Seemed to work OK.
 
2013-04-23 12:37:21 PM

xria: So he is saying guns should be regulated, licensed and investigated as stringently as explosives? That sounds fine, I wonder what made him leapfrog the gun control side of the debate and head deep into levels of regulation that have never been suggested in recent history.


An 18yr old kid can buy tannerite with a driver's license at a department store without a second look or gunpowder at a sporting goods store with some beef jerky and not get even a question or a 'background check'. Military grade explosives (Semtex, C4, Astrolite, etc.) like the equivalent of the M16, AK47, P90, G18 are regulated heavily. Civilian grade explosives (blackpowder, Tannerite, etc.) like the equivalent of the AR-15, PS90, G17, WASR are regulated accordingly.
 
2013-04-23 12:37:48 PM

Chummer45: BayouOtter: CPennypacker: Lando Lincoln: vpb: Gun nuts take that "we can't have gun control because other things kill people too" argument seriously.
I don't think it's trolling.

The argument is that it's not the guns that are killing people. It's the crazy people behind them. Take away a crazy person's gun and they'll still manage to kill people with other objects. Let's work on reducing the crazy person problem instead of the object problem.

They kill a lot less people, which is kind of the goal

Bombs, arson and crashes are better for widespread indiscriminate killing. Even a shouted word can easily kill more people in the proper circumstance than a lone madman with an AR-15.

Is an AR-15 good for defending from the three home invaders in your living room? Yes.

Is it ideal for killing as many people as possible, as quickly as possible? No.

This is question we have to propose for our mass murder/spree killer, what tool is 'ideal'. You cannot judge different tools by different standards and call it equitable, or claim that a gun is more efficient than anything else without some reasoning behind it. Here, let me show you a demonstration using some real-world examples.


It takes a pretty depraved mind to come up with an argument like this.

I'm in Risk Analysis, thinking dispassionately and logically about worst case scenarios and avenues of damage are what I do. Usually more of an industrial setting, but the same techniques apply here.

Do you have an actual disagreement or point you'd like to contest? Other than trying to call me creepy and dismiss it on that basis.
 
2013-04-23 12:39:43 PM
I had a student who was going all nuts with the "ban crock pots!" stuff and trying to play it up for laughs.  I said, "we know that the crock pot bombs killed three people.  How many people do you think would have been killed if both of the men had AR-15s or even a few Glocks?"

\silence
 
2013-04-23 12:41:13 PM

The Stealth Hippopotamus: Tomahawk513: I think what he's saying is that getting those who need it proper mental health treatment would have a similar result. In response to both of you, why not do both? We both agree tackling the situation from one angle is just as effective as the other, so why not do both? Why not require the buyer to provide proof of a recent gun safety course as well as an all-clear from at least two therapists of psychiatrists? Just a thought.

Because it is a right. The state has to prove that it should be taken away from you. You do not have to prove that you deserve it.


That's not entirely accurate.  The amendment states that for the purpose of maintaining a readily available militia, and thereby protecting against foreign attack, the right to own weapons shall not be infringed (paraphrasing, whatever).  I agree that this is a legitimate interest of the state.  Therefore, it makes sense that the state would also have a vested interest in making sure that those who would fill its militia's ranks are mentally healthy individuals.  The state also has an interest in making sure the right to life for an individual is not violated by another individual.  If the state could show that person with criteria x, y, and z are  n% more likely to misuse that right, it could then put forth the argument that allowing the person in question to exercise his/her second amendment rights puts the rights of other people in jeopardy. For example, if research showed that Divorced Adult Male Veterans with Children and Diagnosed PTSD were 350% more likely to harm themselves or someone else than the national average, the state could push for stipulations, such as mental health clearance, or outright revocation of that person's 2nd amendment rights.  We have a precedent for this behavior since criminals are not authorized to purchase firearms.
 
2013-04-23 12:41:53 PM

whizbangthedirtfarmer: I had a student who was going all nuts with the "ban crock pots!" stuff and trying to play it up for laughs.  I said, "we know that the crock pot bombs killed three people.  How many people do you think would have been killed if both of the men had AR-15s or even a few Glocks?"


Less than if they had been better bombers? Or used another method better suited for mass indiscriminate murder?
 
2013-04-23 12:44:52 PM
It's interesting that we live in a country where a lot of its residents are utterly convinced that they will someday heroically defend life or property with their firearm, hollywood style, and sit around thinking of all the potential hypothetical scenarios.

I've got news for my fellow gun owners - the likelihood that you will ever use your gun in self-defense is extremely slim.  The likelihood that someone in your household will be injured/killed/commit suicide with one of your guns is much higher.

Can we please stop pretending that guns are harmless tools (on the same footing as a knife, sword, club, car, or pressure cooker) that are not associated with any special responsibility on the part of the owner? Can we quit pretending that society and the government has no legitimate right or obligation to regulate gun ownership?   Can we stop worshiping guns as if they were something more than an inanimate object designed to fire projectiles that wound or kill people/animals?

Like I said earlier in this thread, I like owning guns too.  I hunt and go out shooting.  But the gun fetishism in this country is completely ridiculous.
 
2013-04-23 12:47:27 PM

BayouOtter: Chummer45: BayouOtter: CPennypacker: Lando Lincoln: vpb: Gun nuts take that "we can't have gun control because other things kill people too" argument seriously.
I don't think it's trolling.

The argument is that it's not the guns that are killing people. It's the crazy people behind them. Take away a crazy person's gun and they'll still manage to kill people with other objects. Let's work on reducing the crazy person problem instead of the object problem.

They kill a lot less people, which is kind of the goal

Bombs, arson and crashes are better for widespread indiscriminate killing. Even a shouted word can easily kill more people in the proper circumstance than a lone madman with an AR-15.

Is an AR-15 good for defending from the three home invaders in your living room? Yes.

Is it ideal for killing as many people as possible, as quickly as possible? No.

This is question we have to propose for our mass murder/spree killer, what tool is 'ideal'. You cannot judge different tools by different standards and call it equitable, or claim that a gun is more efficient than anything else without some reasoning behind it. Here, let me show you a demonstration using some real-world examples.

It takes a pretty depraved mind to come up with an argument like this.

I'm in Risk Analysis, thinking dispassionately and logically about worst case scenarios and avenues of damage are what I do. Usually more of an industrial setting, but the same techniques apply here.

Do you have an actual disagreement or point you'd like to contest? Other than trying to call me creepy and dismiss it on that basis.


So if we regulated guns like explosives or vehicles that would be OK with you.
 
2013-04-23 12:48:27 PM

BayouOtter: Chummer45: BayouOtter: CPennypacker: Lando Lincoln: vpb: Gun nuts take that "we can't have gun control because other things kill people too" argument seriously.
I don't think it's trolling.

The argument is that it's not the guns that are killing people. It's the crazy people behind them. Take away a crazy person's gun and they'll still manage to kill people with other objects. Let's work on reducing the crazy person problem instead of the object problem.

They kill a lot less people, which is kind of the goal

Bombs, arson and crashes are better for widespread indiscriminate killing. Even a shouted word can easily kill more people in the proper circumstance than a lone madman with an AR-15.

Is an AR-15 good for defending from the three home invaders in your living room? Yes.

Is it ideal for killing as many people as possible, as quickly as possible? No.

This is question we have to propose for our mass murder/spree killer, what tool is 'ideal'. You cannot judge different tools by different standards and call it equitable, or claim that a gun is more efficient than anything else without some reasoning behind it. Here, let me show you a demonstration using some real-world examples.

It takes a pretty depraved mind to come up with an argument like this.

I'm in Risk Analysis, thinking dispassionately and logically about worst case scenarios and avenues of damage are what I do. Usually more of an industrial setting, but the same techniques apply here.

Do you have an actual disagreement or point you'd like to contest? Other than trying to call me creepy and dismiss it on that basis.


I would take issue with your overall point, which (I think) is that crazy people are more dangerous when they don't have access to AR-15s.
 
2013-04-23 12:54:55 PM

BayouOtter: Chummer45: BayouOtter: CPennypacker: Lando Lincoln: vpb: Gun nuts take that "we can't have gun control because other things kill people too" argument seriously.
I don't think it's trolling.

The argument is that it's not the guns that are killing people. It's the crazy people behind them. Take away a crazy person's gun and they'll still manage to kill people with other objects. Let's work on reducing the crazy person problem instead of the object problem.

They kill a lot less people, which is kind of the goal

Bombs, arson and crashes are better for widespread indiscriminate killing. Even a shouted word can easily kill more people in the proper circumstance than a lone madman with an AR-15.

Is an AR-15 good for defending from the three home invaders in your living room? Yes.

Is it ideal for killing as many people as possible, as quickly as possible? No.

This is question we have to propose for our mass murder/spree killer, what tool is 'ideal'. You cannot judge different tools by different standards and call it equitable, or claim that a gun is more efficient than anything else without some reasoning behind it. Here, let me show you a demonstration using some real-world examples.

It takes a pretty depraved mind to come up with an argument like this.

I'm in Risk Analysis, thinking dispassionately and logically about worst case scenarios and avenues of damage are what I do. Usually more of an industrial setting, but the same techniques apply here.

Do you have an actual disagreement or point you'd like to contest? Other than trying to call me creepy and dismiss it on that basis.



Also, as a risk analyst, surely you realize that focusing on only one variable (crazy people) is kind of dumb.

Are you saying that imposing relatively strict regulations on guns will not reduce the risk of crazy people shooting places up?  If so, please provide your risk analysis.   Otherwise, I'm beginning to think that you're just some assclown trying to add credibility to your standard run-of-the-mills "guns don't kill people" argument, by claiming that your argument comes purely from an objective and logical risk management position.
 
2013-04-23 01:02:03 PM

BayouOtter: whizbangthedirtfarmer: I had a student who was going all nuts with the "ban crock pots!" stuff and trying to play it up for laughs.  I said, "we know that the crock pot bombs killed three people.  How many people do you think would have been killed if both of the men had AR-15s or even a few Glocks?"

Less than if they had been better bombers? Or used another method better suited for mass indiscriminate murder?


Nope and no.  Security had robbed them of any options other than something you can place in a backpack or easily conceal.  It's not as if they can drag a few barrels of fertilizer out without raising suspicion.  Essentially, they were relegated to what they could shove in the pack, which was a small bomb, or, a few glocks.
 
2013-04-23 01:02:27 PM

Chummer45: It's interesting that we live in a country where a lot of its residents are utterly convinced that they will someday heroically defend life or property with their firearm, hollywood style, and sit around thinking of all the potential hypothetical scenarios.


I think you're projecting here. I don't relish the thought of using any one of my guns on a human being, nobody I know sits around fapping to the thought either. Like any safety or security concern, I've thought about it, just like I thought about where to mount the fire extinguisher in my kitchen or how I set up my workshop.

I've got news for my fellow gun owners - the likelihood that you will ever use your gun in self-defense is extremely slim.

I've already had to use a gun to defend my sister's health and safety once (not from a human assailant, but still). I'm not going to put my life or the life of someone I care about in jeopardy on your guarantee.

  The likelihood that someone in your household will be injured/killed/commit suicide with one of your guns is much higher.

Kellerman? Several academic papers have been published severely questioning Kellerman's methodology, selective capture of data, and refusal to provide raw data from his gun-risk studies so as to substantiate his methods and result validity. While Kellerman has backed away from his previous statement that people are "43 times more likely" to be murdered in their own home if they own and keep a gun in their home, he still proposes that the risk is 2.7 times higher. The critiques included Henry E. Schaffer, J. Neil Schuman, and criminologists Gary Kleck, Don Kates, and others.

Can we please stop pretending that guns are harmless tools (on the same footing as a knife, sword, club, car, or pressure cooker) that are not associated with any special responsibility on the part of the owner?

Knives, clubs, cars and pressure cookers are all tools, and they can all be used to harm. My circular saw is a powerful and useful tool, but if used improperly it can seriously injure or kill someone. Cars kill more people than guns in the US.

Nobody is pretending anything. You're projecting.

Can we quit pretending that society and the government has no legitimate right or obligation to regulate gun ownership?

Governments do not have rights, they have powers. Rights are for the people.

Can we stop worshiping guns as if they were something more than an inanimate object designed to fire projectiles that wound or kill people/animals?

You're the one attributing supernatural powers to firearms, not I.

Chummer45:
I would take issue with your overall point, which (I think) is that crazy people are more dangerous when they don't have access to AR-15s.

Not quite.
My point is that an AR-15 or equivalent is not the ideal tool for indiscriminate mass murder.
Secondary, even if you remove the gun from the madman's hand, he still can and will kill people. Probably a lot of people.


I'll try again:
'Problems' with guns as mass murder tools:
1. Puts the shooter at great personal risk during the shooting, unlike a bomb or arson attack.
2. Takes time to kill a large number of people, as most people being shot at tend to try to GTFO as fast as possible. Most shooters have trouble hitting moving targets at any real distance, especially when under stress.
3. Long guns and other weapons which are more 'effective' in the abstract increase the risk of a shooter being detected before he's in optimal position. Which is why most shootings involve concealable weapons.
4. Very personal, unlike a bomb. Many shooters suffer some kind of mental or physical fatigue and give up, choosing to kill themselves part way through the massacre even when they could have conceivably killed more people before going down.
5. Usually a one-way-trip as the shooter's location will become known very fast and every law enforcement officer in a ten mile radius will converge on it. With bombings/arson, the murderer may be able to carry out multiple attacks before being identified.
6. Requires significant skill with a weapon if killing more than one or two victims is the intent. Any idiot can walk up to someone and shoot them, but everyone nearby will flee afterwards. This is why the more destructive mass shootings involved trapped victims.
In other words: There's a reason that terrorists, rebels, and militaries use explosives for most of their high body count attacks.
 
2013-04-23 01:07:21 PM

Chummer45: Also, as a risk analyst, surely you realize that focusing on only one variable (crazy people) is kind of dumb.


When the "crazy madman mass killer" factor is removed from the equation, you have a 0% death rate attributed to 'crazy madman mass killers'.

Its called a limiting factor.

Are you saying that imposing relatively strict regulations on guns will not reduce the risk of crazy people shooting places up?

It might, but it probably won't reduce the number of people killed by madman mass murders.

Imagine that tomorrow all blue cars were banned from the roads. Would you see a decrease in blue-car related accidents and fatalities? Yes. Will you see a dip in the overall accident/fatality rates? Probably not.

In either case you've spent a lot of time, effort, and money for little to zero gain.

I'm beginning to think that you're just some assclown.

No need for personal insults.
 
2013-04-23 01:12:23 PM

Tomahawk513: That's not entirely accurate. The amendment states that for the purpose of maintaining a readily available militia, and thereby protecting against foreign attack, the right to own weapons shall not be infringed (paraphrasing, whatever). I agree that this is a legitimate interest of the state. Therefore, it makes sense that the state would also have a vested interest in making sure that those who would fill its militia's ranks are mentally healthy individuals. The state also has an interest in making sure the right to life for an individual is not violated by another individual. If the state could show that person with criteria x, y, and z are n% more likely to misuse that right, it could then put forth the argument that allowing the person in question to exercise his/her second amendment rights puts the rights of other people in jeopardy. For example, if research showed that Divorced Adult Male Veterans with Children and Diagnosed PTSD were 350% more likely to harm themselves or someone else than the national average, the state could push for stipulations, such as mental health clearance, or outright revocation of that person's 2nd amendment rights. We have a precedent for this behavior since criminals are not authorized to purchase firearms.


So basically you want to use the matrices that insurance companies use to calculate risk and apply them to everyone. Then use them as yes/then triggers for different levels of scrutiny? Neat idea. It's too cold and calculating to ever be actual law but it's a really interesting idea.

My only problem is that is punishing someone for something they may do. Just because I am more likely to do something does not in fact mean that I will do something. And god help you if you make race or gender part of your equation.
 
2013-04-23 01:32:12 PM

The Stealth Hippopotamus: Tomahawk513: That's not entirely accurate. The amendment states that for the purpose of maintaining a readily available militia, and thereby protecting against foreign attack, the right to own weapons shall not be infringed (paraphrasing, whatever). I agree that this is a legitimate interest of the state. Therefore, it makes sense that the state would also have a vested interest in making sure that those who would fill its militia's ranks are mentally healthy individuals. The state also has an interest in making sure the right to life for an individual is not violated by another individual. If the state could show that person with criteria x, y, and z are n% more likely to misuse that right, it could then put forth the argument that allowing the person in question to exercise his/her second amendment rights puts the rights of other people in jeopardy. For example, if research showed that Divorced Adult Male Veterans with Children and Diagnosed PTSD were 350% more likely to harm themselves or someone else than the national average, the state could push for stipulations, such as mental health clearance, or outright revocation of that person's 2nd amendment rights. We have a precedent for this behavior since criminals are not authorized to purchase firearms.

So basically you want to use the matrices that insurance companies use to calculate risk and apply them to everyone. Then use them as yes/then triggers for different levels of scrutiny? Neat idea. It's too cold and calculating to ever be actual law but it's a really interesting idea.

My only problem is that is punishing someone for something they may do. Just because I am more likely to do something does not in fact mean that I will do something. And god help you if you make race or gender part of your equation.


Washington, we call this effective political discourse.  You should try it out sometime!
 
2013-04-23 01:48:17 PM
It's just a crazy coincidence that basically every mass shooter over the last year has used an AR-15. It has nothing to do with the effectiveness of murdering people. A knife would have had the same impact in all those cases.
 
2013-04-23 01:56:42 PM

justtray: It's just a crazy coincidence that basically every mass shooter over the last year has used an AR-15. It has nothing to do with the effectiveness of murdering people. A knife would have had the same impact in all those cases.


Brevik, who killed 70+ people, did not use an AR-15.
Even Cho killed more than Lanza without using an AR-15

Kim Dae-han killed 198 people with some gas and matches.

But whatever.
 
2013-04-23 01:58:21 PM
Late to the party, but, can we have a conversation on WHY high-capacity magazines should be banned?

In a mass shooting situation, the shooter only has, at best, a few seconds to unload into a crowd of people as they start running for their lives.

If the shooter has to switch guns or reload, it gives the victims a few seconds to get further away and closer to safety.

Can anyone make an argument for why they would NEED a high-capacity magazine? (aside from "because freedom".....because you don't have the freedom to drive drunk at 200MPH or to get naked in Times Square and helicopter your dick around)
 
2013-04-23 01:59:24 PM

justtray: It's just a crazy coincidence that basically every mass shooter over the last year has used an AR-15. It has nothing to do with the effectiveness of murdering people. A knife would have had the same impact in all those cases.


A real crazy coincidence would be if many of them were taking antidepressants.
.
 
2013-04-23 01:59:25 PM
I wonder how the senator would react if somone left a pressure cooker (not an actual bomb) infront of his office.
 
2013-04-23 02:06:26 PM

iron_city_ap: I wonder how the senator would react if somone left a pressure cooker (not an actual bomb) infront of his office.


What would be more concerning is the person who buys someone a pressure cooker, backpack and an alarm clock as a gift to someone and then is too cheap to buy wrapping paper so just stuffs them inside each other and puts it under the Christmas tree or on a table.
 
2013-04-23 02:07:16 PM

CPennypacker: They kill a lot less people, which is kind of the goal


If you focus on the real problem - the crazy person - and actually do things to help them, chances are they won't kill any at all.

Which is what the goal should be.
 
2013-04-23 02:07:43 PM
So what he's saying is that pressure cookers can be dangerous in the wrong hands, and the majority of home canners are responsible individuals.
 
2013-04-23 02:08:42 PM

sugar_fetus: CPennypacker: They kill a lot less people, which is kind of the goal

If you focus on the real problem - the crazy person - and actually do things to help them, chances are they won't kill any at all.

Which is what the goal should be.


People with true concern for the mentally ill don't use the term "crazy" and refer to them as a problem. People looking for a scapegoat do,
 
2013-04-23 02:10:10 PM

Tamater: Late to the party, but, can we have a conversation on WHY high-capacity magazines should be banned?

Good question. Why?

In a mass shooting situation, the shooter only has, at best, a few seconds to unload into a crowd of people as they start running for their lives.


Well, Loughner had that issue, certainly. More 'successful' shooters like Lanza and Cho chose locations where people could not escape, and chained doors shut, etc.

If the shooter has to switch guns or reload, it gives the victims a few seconds to get further away and closer to safety.

It didn't help the victims of Cho (Who used 10 and 15 round magazines) because he selected a time and place where his victims were contained. Not so much Lanza either, but if you believe that the three second window afforded by a magazine change will make an appreciable difference, I guess that is an opinion.

Can anyone make an argument for why they would NEED a high-capacity magazine?

For the same reason the police officer NEEDS to have a 17 round magazine. To protect myself and my family.

Too bad I don't have body armor and radio backup and a duty belt with three more magazines when I'm in my boxers at 3 am.
 
2013-04-23 02:10:40 PM
Since this year is the 50th anniversary of the murder of Oswald, I suppose we can look forward to this guy criticizing Lee's choice of a Mannlicher Carcano. A better rifle and he wouldn't have needed that third shot, right? But Kennedy was a liberal (sort of), so it hardly matters.
 
2013-04-23 02:14:42 PM

CPennypacker: People with true concern for the mentally ill don't use the term "crazy" and refer to them as a problem. People looking for a scapegoat do,


to be honest, my concern for the mentally ill extends only to making sure they don't harm anyone.  How that is accomplished, I'm not terribly concerned with.
 
2013-04-23 02:15:12 PM

BayouOtter: justtray: It's just a crazy coincidence that basically every mass shooter over the last year has used an AR-15. It has nothing to do with the effectiveness of murdering people. A knife would have had the same impact in all those cases.

Brevik, who killed 70+ people, did not use an AR-15.
Even Cho killed more than Lanza without using an AR-15

Kim Dae-han killed 198 people with some gas and matches.

But whatever.


Which of those was in the last year?

GanjSmokr: justtray: It's just a crazy coincidence that basically every mass shooter over the last year has used an AR-15. It has nothing to do with the effectiveness of murdering people. A knife would have had the same impact in all those cases.

A real crazy coincidence would be if many of them were taking antidepressants.
.

Really? Feel free to give me some sources on that. Sounds like BS considering that's private medical information that basically no one could legally know. But from your posts in here, you're one of the disgustingly dishonest gun nuts, so I guess it's not a lie if it supports your narrative and you believe it hard enough.
 
2013-04-23 02:16:56 PM

BayouOtter: Tamater: Late to the party, but, can we have a conversation on WHY high-capacity magazines should be banned?

Good question. Why?

In a mass shooting situation, the shooter only has, at best, a few seconds to unload into a crowd of people as they start running for their lives.

Well, Loughner had that issue, certainly. More 'successful' shooters like Lanza and Cho chose locations where people could not escape, and chained doors shut, etc.

If the shooter has to switch guns or reload, it gives the victims a few seconds to get further away and closer to safety.

It didn't help the victims of Cho (Who used 10 and 15 round magazines) because he selected a time and place where his victims were contained. Not so much Lanza either, but if you believe that the three second window afforded by a magazine change will make an appreciable difference, I guess that is an opinion.

Can anyone make an argument for why they would NEED a high-capacity magazine?

For the same reason the police officer NEEDS to have a 17 round magazine. To protect myself and my family.

Too bad I don't have body armor and radio backup and a duty belt with three more magazines when I'm in my boxers at 3 am.


You need a high capacity magazine for the same reasons the police do? Police work and home defense are the same thing?

How do you rationalize this derp to yourself? Please elaborate.

It's like a never ending stream of illogical arguments from gun-rights proponents.
 
2013-04-23 02:17:07 PM

GoldSpider: CPennypacker: People with true concern for the mentally ill don't use the term "crazy" and refer to them as a problem. People looking for a scapegoat do,

to be honest, my concern for the mentally ill extends only to making sure they don't harm anyone.  How that is accomplished, I'm not terribly concerned with.


I know! Lets keep them from getting guns!
 
2013-04-23 02:20:44 PM

justtray: You need a high capacity magazine for the same reasons the police do? Police work and home defense are the same thing?


Police do not use guns as defensive weapons. Their purpose is to show power and intimidate (ie threaten people with death).

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-pN2gzeG0MU
 
2013-04-23 02:20:47 PM

CPennypacker: People with true concern for the mentally ill don't use the term "crazy" and refer to them as a problem. People looking for a scapegoat do,


Nice redirect. Too bad it's pretty visible, and meaningless.

Of course, I assume you won't count my own many years of struggle with depression as adding anything to my knowledge of those under mental health care.

Trust me, we refer to each other as 'crazies' all the fraking time. We refer to what we have as a problem. That's why we're actually trying to get that part of ourselves fixed.

So, how about addressing my actual point instead of just offhandedly insulting me? It's okay. I'll wait...
 
2013-04-23 02:20:52 PM

justtray: Which of those was in the last year?


I'm sorry your argument only holds up in an extremely limited data set.
 
2013-04-23 02:22:50 PM

CPennypacker: I know! Lets keep them from getting guns!


By including a prospective gun buyer's medical history in a background check?
 
2013-04-23 02:23:55 PM
I think the picture points to some of the criticisms of the tactics used in gun control, specifically the Assault Weapons Ban which is based on catagorization of features. It is characteristics of the weapon (which largely does not affect how the weapon operates) that drive whether or not a weapon is banned.  If it looks like a scary weapon seen in movies used by "bad guys" it is more likely to be banned rather than the exact same weapon more classically displayed with a wood stock which wouldn't be banned even if the weapon actually functions the same.  Banning by features isn't making anyone safe, if you want bans to work (assuming you can) you have to address the capabilities and most features of weapons do nothing to enhance killing ability in a meaningful way. Are we safer if we ban assualt weapons pressure cookers over traditional ones.  No.

Please, don't mistake this support of the parody picture making me some kind of gun nut.  I am not opposed to much of the restrictions proposed concerning firearms. However, I am peeved at the tendency for feel good laws that do little or nothing to address the actual issue of gun violence, such as assault weapons bans.  Background checks, inventory control of gun dealers, expanded mental health record keeping databases to check for problem gun owners (HIPPA rules make this a very tricky area) will all help much more than picking on scary looking weapons which leave the exact same classically looking ones available.
 
2013-04-23 02:24:21 PM

sugar_fetus: CPennypacker: People with true concern for the mentally ill don't use the term "crazy" and refer to them as a problem. People looking for a scapegoat do,

Nice redirect. Too bad it's pretty visible, and meaningless.

Of course, I assume you won't count my own many years of struggle with depression as adding anything to my knowledge of those under mental health care.

Trust me, we refer to each other as 'crazies' all the fraking time. We refer to what we have as a problem. That's why we're actually trying to get that part of ourselves fixed.

So, how about addressing my actual point instead of just offhandedly insulting me? It's okay. I'll wait...


You don't have a point, and while you and your other depressed friends may refer to each other as "crazies," when you're talking about it in terms of treatment and addressing society's problems, its inappropriate. You may think you're a "crazy" but I guarantee you your therapist doesn't call you that.
 
2013-04-23 02:29:44 PM

GoldSpider: CPennypacker: I know! Lets keep them from getting guns!

By including a prospective gun buyer's medical history in a background check?


Or some sort of mental health clearance as a license requirement? I don't know, you're the one that wants to stop people with mental health problems from hurting people. Wouldn't a good way of doing that be to stop them from getting weaponry?
 
2013-04-23 02:37:09 PM

justtray: GanjSmokr: justtray: It's just a crazy coincidence that basically every mass shooter over the last year has used an AR-15. It has nothing to do with the effectiveness of murdering people. A knife would have had the same impact in all those cases.

A real crazy coincidence would be if many of them were taking antidepressants.
.
Really? Feel free to give me some sources on that. Sounds like BS considering that's private medical information that basically no one could legally know. But from your posts in here, you're one of the disgustingly dishonest gun nuts, so I guess it's not a lie if it supports your narrative and you believe it hard enough.



http://ssristories.com/index.php?p=school
 
2013-04-23 02:39:05 PM
Hi, hello, is this the three where gun-nuts will argue that guns are less lethal than pressure cookers?
 
2013-04-23 02:44:00 PM

justtray: BayouOtter:
Brevik, who killed 70+ people, did not use an AR-15.
Even Cho killed more than Lanza without using an AR-15

Kim Dae-han killed 198 people with some gas and matches.

But whatever.

Which of those was in the last year?


Dae-han was 2003, why does it matter?
 
2013-04-23 02:53:42 PM

GanjSmokr: justtray: GanjSmokr: justtray: It's just a crazy coincidence that basically every mass shooter over the last year has used an AR-15. It has nothing to do with the effectiveness of murdering people. A knife would have had the same impact in all those cases.

A real crazy coincidence would be if many of them were taking antidepressants.
.
Really? Feel free to give me some sources on that. Sounds like BS considering that's private medical information that basically no one could legally know. But from your posts in here, you're one of the disgustingly dishonest gun nuts, so I guess it's not a lie if it supports your narrative and you believe it hard enough.


http://ssristories.com/index.php?p=school


Wow, even worse than I expected. A no credibility blog, without even one case documented in 2012. Epic fail.

BayouOtter: justtray: BayouOtter:
Brevik, who killed 70+ people, did not use an AR-15.
Even Cho killed more than Lanza without using an AR-15

Kim Dae-han killed 198 people with some gas and matches.

But whatever.

Which of those was in the last year?

Dae-han was 2003, why does it matter?


Because I said that basically all of the mass shootings in the last year have been using AR-15's. Your counter argument did nothing to divert the very clear, growing trend, which shows that mass shooters are choosing AR-15s because of their capacity for killing in a very short period of time and ease of accessibility.

You should argue with yourself though. If it's easier/more deadly to use bombs or pistols or sniper rifles, why aren't they using them? Why did the boston bombers feel the need to have an AR-15 if they already had bombs, which based on your argument above, are as effective if not moreso?

All the gun nuts want to frame the argument dishonestly, which is the exact topic of this thread, and fallacy involved. That anything can be used to kill someone, so don't regulate anything, or regulate all equally. Everything isn't apples, and some weapons are more deadly, and more regulated.
 
2013-04-23 02:53:51 PM

CPennypacker: Is the senator making a toung in cheeck critique of gun laws, that they do not address what makes the gun dangerous? Perhaps we should do what he wants and make bullets illegal instead.


Good luck with that.  If you want a GOP Super-majority in the Senate, and House, and a Teapublican President for the next 20 years, go ahead and go all in with that strategy.  Personally, I'd rather not go back to feudalism part 2 ... this time with machine guns and drones.
 
2013-04-23 02:54:03 PM

optimistic_cynic: Jim_Callahan: optimistic_cynic: True but even in competition the object is do destroy the object you're shooting at whether it be a paper target or clay pigeons, it is still a tool for destruction. I would say the same for for archery as well.

/likes guns but does support stronger background checks

By that logic, boiling things in pressurized oil isn't exactly good for them, or constructive...

Perhaps, but I'm still pretty sure that guns were originally designed for killing and killing only as opposed to say a knife that has both utility and killing purposes.


Guns aren't designed to kill people, they're designed to propel a projectile towards a target accurately. If guns were designed for killing people, target practice or hunting would be a misuse of the gun. By that line offor logic, every shot fired that didn't kill someone would be a misuse of a firearm.

The "guns are designed for killing people" line is just a bunch of emotional hyperbole.
 
2013-04-23 02:56:47 PM

hinten: Hi, hello, is this the three where gun-nuts will argue that guns are less lethal than pressure cookers?


Yes. Also, did you know that a lot of people die in car accidents?  Therefore, cars are way more dangerous than guns.
 
2013-04-23 02:56:53 PM
For those of you that are new to the mental health canard that gets trotted out in all of these threads, what they mean is that it should be much easier to involutarily commit someone that might be a threat.

Somehow, making it easier to lock up people that are not criminals is the only way to preserve true freedom.
 
2013-04-23 03:01:09 PM

justtray: Wow, even worse than I expected. A no credibility blog, without even one case documented in 2012. Epic fail.


Yea... "no credibility" as in they link to actual news articles about each event and point out exactly what made them believe the people involved were on SSRIs.  And do you feel that events before 2012 didn't actually happen or do you just not care about them?

In all honesty, I fully expected you to dismiss anything I posted, so I'm really not sure why I even bothered.

/I have you farkied as "not worth it" and I need to actually heed my own warnings.  This will be my last reply to you, kiddo.
 
2013-04-23 03:07:15 PM
justtray:
Because I said that basically all of the mass shootings in the last year have been using AR-15's.

Okay, and? Why is 'last year' so vital? If someone dies more than year ago does it not count?

You should argue with yourself though. If it's easier/more deadly to use bombs or pistols or sniper rifles, why aren't they using them?

Cho killed more people than Lanza using a pair of pistols, but that wasn't last year so I suppose it doesn't count?

Thankfully most people who decide killing lots of people aren't the most rational actors.

Why did the boston bombers feel the need to have an AR-15 if they already had bombs, which based on your argument above, are as effective if not moreso?

An AR-15 is a discriminate guided weapon - its more useful for killing one or three people in front of you in the context of an escape.
A bomb is better at indiscriminate mass murder than a rifle, which is why its better for a terrorist attack.
 
2013-04-23 03:08:44 PM

GanjSmokr: justtray: It's just a crazy coincidence that basically every mass shooter over the last year has used an AR-15. It has nothing to do with the effectiveness of murdering people. A knife would have had the same impact in all those cases.

A real crazy coincidence would be if many of them were taking antidepressants.
.


GanjSmokr: justtray: Wow, even worse than I expected. A no credibility blog, without even one case documented in 2012. Epic fail.

Yea... "no credibility" as in they link to actual news articles about each event and point out exactly what made them believe the people involved were on SSRIs.   And do you feel that events before 2012 didn't actually happen or do you just not care about them?

In all honesty, I fully expected you to dismiss anything I posted, so I'm really not sure why I even bothered.

/I have you farkied as "not worth it" and I need to actually heed my own warnings.  This will be my last reply to you, kiddo.


Yes, invalid arguments often get dismissed. Feel free to come back when you have some valid ones.
 
2013-04-23 03:14:12 PM

justtray: Yes, invalid arguments often get dismissed.


Like singling out the only year whose data vaguely follows your otherwise baseless claim.
 
2013-04-23 03:15:22 PM

Chummer45: hinten: Hi, hello, is this the three where gun-nuts will argue that guns are less lethal than pressure cookers?

Yes. Also, did you know that a lot of people die in car accidents?  Therefore, cars are way more dangerous than guns.


How dishonest of you. Why do you want to frame the discussion with cars? Do you really want guns to have the same safety standards and federal and state regulations that cars have? Do you really want to pass competency tests for owning a firearm? If not, you are being dishonest, but you probably know you are being a terrible and dishonest human being.
 
2013-04-23 03:16:02 PM

BayouOtter: It didn't help the victims of Cho (Who used 10 and 15 round magazines) because he selected a time and place where his victims were contained. Not so much Lanza either, but if you believe that the three second window afforded by a magazine change will make an appreciable difference, I guess that is an opinion.


I did napkin math on here one time about the implications of banning large magazines, and it came out to something like it doubled or tripled the amount of downtime that a mass-murderer wouldn't be shooting children in the face. The math is pretty simple. More time reloading means less time to shoot children. A handful of children who aren't murdered in an equivalent time frame may not be an "appreciable difference" to you, but I can assure you that the children in question would consider it appreciable.
 
2013-04-23 03:18:00 PM

BayouOtter: justtray:
Because I said that basically all of the mass shootings in the last year have been using AR-15's.

Okay, and? Why is 'last year' so vital? If someone dies more than year ago does it not count?

You should argue with yourself though. If it's easier/more deadly to use bombs or pistols or sniper rifles, why aren't they using them?

Cho killed more people than Lanza using a pair of pistols, but that wasn't last year so I suppose it doesn't count?

Thankfully most people who decide killing lots of people aren't the most rational actors.

Why did the boston bombers feel the need to have an AR-15 if they already had bombs, which based on your argument above, are as effective if not moreso?

An AR-15 is a discriminate guided weapon - its more useful for killing one or three people in front of you in the context of an escape.
A bomb is better at indiscriminate mass murder than a rifle, which is why its better for a terrorist attack.


I agree all guns need to be better regulated. I don't think you've posed an argument with one anecdotal story of Cho killing people with pistols compared to the Aurora, Sandy Hook, Boston Bombers who all used AR-15s to name a few recent ones. It is quite impressive Cho killed so many though considering handguns only kill in about 1/7 compared to a much higher rate for rifle bullet injuries.

Bombs are also risky, and the components of them are heavily regulated. Guns in general are better than bombs for non-surprise combat for many reasons, but why did they choose to use an AR-15? (see above) Or even just listen to the videos posted on line of 100s of bullets going off in minutes.

You really have to have your head in the sand pretty deep to not accept that there are guns that need to be not only more regulated than other guns, but that all firearms need stronger regulation and tracking to prevent these situations from occurring in the first place.

Side note - I am eager to hear how the bombing suspects were able to get their hands on all the explosive materials required. Seems there may be some gaps in the existing regulation for bomb materials too.
 
2013-04-23 03:21:12 PM

justtray: Side note - I am eager to hear how the bombing suspects were able to get their hands on all the explosive materials required. Seems there may be some gaps in the existing regulation for bomb materials too.


With some money and a nearby Walmart, you can put together a bomb in an afternoon.
 
2013-04-23 03:24:08 PM

MichiganFTL: jrodr018: MichiganFTL: jrodr018: MichiganFTL: jrodr018: So I am not sure what your intentions are, and you may have the best intentions in the world, but why would you even compare them to our specific situation then? Even Sweden has a far more strict gun control, you need to be a citizen in good standing (maybe do a check on a person background, let's call it a "personal background check"), I do not need to be part 

I compared them in response to an argument:

jrodr018: that countries with strict gun regulation have dramatically lower rates of gun violence and homicide in general

Please do not quote me on something I did not say. Feel free to check back on the thread. An actual serious discussion on all of the issues you mentioned is warranted, but, when the NRA side counterargument is the picture of a pressure cooker, man, come on, really? Why can we talk about actually licensing people, like all of the countries you listed? how about carrying weapons in safes, like all the countries you listed? That is thrown out of the discussion as soon as is brought up. THAT is the problem with gun debate. As far as I know, on the gun control side, only crazies advocate that ALL weapons are taken away, because most reasonable people understand we have that right and that right cannot be taken away.

I apologize, that was Chummer45, not you. I just clicked the quote button too quick, my mistake. The NICS system and 'licensing' people are only as good as the information put into them. Without adequate mental health reporting/intervention (difficult on the intervention part), we'll still have a few slip through the cracks, so that needs to be tied up too. The NICS needs to have a civilian version where I can put in a person's Name, DOB, DL# and get a simple yes/no to be able to buy a gun so I know who I'm selling to is legit.

I don't know how we can carry weapons in safes, so I'm lost on that one, my safe is like 2,000 lbs empty.

Feel free to read up on how the countries you ...


Canada's Laws Regarding the Storage and Transportation of Firearms
 
2013-04-23 03:29:00 PM
i253.photobucket.comI DON'T UNDERSTAND HOW THIS GUY GOT ELECTED!!!
 
2013-04-23 03:33:53 PM
CPennypacker:
You don't have a point, and while you and your other depressed friends may refer to each other as "crazies," when you're talking about it in terms of treatment and addressing society's problems, its inappropriate. You may think you're a "crazy" but I guarantee you your therapist doesn't call you that.

I do, and she does, except during any formal setting or paperwork. As Fark is about as far from formal as it gets, well I'm sure you can figure it out.

Glad to know you know so much about me. You still haven't addressed my point. At this point, I know you won't.
 
2013-04-23 03:36:14 PM
Wow, BayouOtter just flat-out beat down this thread.....you anti-gunners need to log out, grab a chai latte and regroup.

/golf clap
 
2013-04-23 03:39:39 PM

shutin: Wow, BayouOtter just flat-out beat down this thread.....you anti-gunners need to log out, grab a chai latte and regroup.

/golf clap


I prefer "background checker" to "anti-gunner."

Also, you may need to wipe off the corner your mouth. Looks like Bayou Otter left you a little something.
 
2013-04-23 03:46:33 PM

sugar_fetus: CPennypacker:
You don't have a point, and while you and your other depressed friends may refer to each other as "crazies," when you're talking about it in terms of treatment and addressing society's problems, its inappropriate. You may think you're a "crazy" but I guarantee you your therapist doesn't call you that.

I do, and she does, except during any formal setting or paperwork. As Fark is about as far from formal as it gets, well I'm sure you can figure it out.

Glad to know you know so much about me. You still haven't addressed my point. At this point, I know you won't.


I did address your point. "Fixing the crazies" is a canard. It'll be easier to repeal the second amendment entirely than it will be to pass mental health medical reform so intensive and comprehensive that we fix all the crazies. Let's work on improving mental healthcare in this country and along the way we can keep people who are unstable from owning dangerous weaponry.
 
2013-04-23 03:52:27 PM

Bashar and Asma's Infinite Playlist: I did napkin math on here one time about the implications of banning large magazines, and it came out to something like it doubled or tripled the amount of downtime that a mass-murderer wouldn't be shooting children in the face.


You're assuming that
A) That banning a bit of sheet metal and a spring will keep it from being available
B) That nobody knows how long it takes to change a magazine - triples sounds like a lot, but 6 seconds instead of 2 isn't much.

Again, I find it very odd that retired/active law enforcement get exemptions on magazine bans, but nobody else can.

The math is pretty simple. More time reloading means less time to shoot children. A handful of children who aren't murdered in an equivalent time frame may not be an "appreciable difference" to you, but I can assure you that the children in question would consider it appreciable.

On the personal level, you are right, it is a huge difference.

On the nation policy level when you propose to spend billions of dollars and untold amounts of resources and manpower for the payoff of a dozen or two dozen lives, I'm going to call you irresponsible.

Those kinds of resources, if spent on healthcare (mental and otherwise), income inequality, ending the drug war, and breaking violence/poverty cycles would save many more lives and improve a great many more.


justtray:
It is quite impressive Cho killed so many though considering handguns only kill in about 1/7 compared to a much higher rate for rifle bullet injuries.

Cho had better rates of return on his resources with pistols, as opposed to the AR-15 examples, so you want to make the AR-15 unavailable? So the next shooter will choose a more effective weapon? What?

Bombs are also risky, and the components of them are heavily regulated.

Not really. I mean, if you gave anyone with the internet about a week and a few hundred dollars they could build some pretty effective IEDs with stuff you get at Home Depot.

I think a lot of people are just lazy, even when it comes to mass murder. Thankfully.

Guns in general are better than bombs for non-surprise combat for many reasons, but why did they choose to use an AR-15? (see above)

The AR-15 is really popular because it has a super strong and super popular aftermarket that allows for a lot of customization that lends it to many legitimate sporting purposes.
 
2013-04-23 04:07:06 PM

Bashar and Asma's Infinite Playlist: justtray: Side note - I am eager to hear how the bombing suspects were able to get their hands on all the explosive materials required. Seems there may be some gaps in the existing regulation for bomb materials too.

With some money and a nearby Walmart, you can put together a bomb in an afternoon.


Most likely you'd blow up your trailer and be a qualifier for the next Darwin Awards.
 
2013-04-23 04:45:27 PM

Chummer45: MichiganFTL: Chummer45: MichiganFTL: Chummer45: GanjSmokr: While this is stupid to try to blame pressure cookers for this situation, some don't feel it is stupid to try to blame guns for gun violence...  are there any other situations that people try to blame on objects instead of the people who used those objects or is it just guns?


Have you ever considered that this is a strawman argument, and that the point of gun control isn't to "blame" guns for violence, but to take common-sense measures to reduce the prevalence and availability of guns in our society?   Have you ever considered the mountains of evidence that countries with strict gun regulation have dramatically lower rates of gun violence and homicide in general?

Like Mexico, the Middle East, Russia, Brazil?

Or Switzerland, Finland, Sweden, Norway, France? 

Yeah, keep pushing that we can solve everything because getting rid of guns would be a magic bullet.


Yeah that's exactly what I argued.   Getting rid of guns would result in a utopian society.  You know what, you're right.  lets stockpile as many deadly weapons as possible.  That will make everyone a lot safer.

Jesus.

What are your 'common sense' measures? Or are you just mad that there are a ton of countries with high gun ownership per capita with low murder/violence rates and that there are a ton of countries with low gun ownership per capita with high murder/violence rates which pokes holes in your 'mountains of evidence' argument?

Look, I'm not here to get into the weeds on a stupid internet argument with you (that you have no doubt spent hours on gun forums prepping for).   My original statement was correct when you look at western, industrialized nations that are similar to the U.S.  Looking at those statistics, objectively, leads to the conclusion that less guns = less violent crime.

The United States is a massive outlier when it comes to per capita gun ownership, and a huge outlier when it comes to per capita gun homicides.  You can sit ...



If you look at the stats I'd guess that in most of these similar countries that have less guns that the violent crime just shifted from guns to other types. Gun grabbers don't care about violent crime unless it involves a gun.
 
2013-04-23 04:45:44 PM
That headline accurately represents the anit-gun logic of the AWB.
 
2013-04-23 05:16:12 PM
Jegred2:
If you look at the stats I'd guess that in most of these similar countries that have less guns that the violent crime just shifted from guns to other types. Gun grabbers don't care about violent crime unless it involves a gun.

Whoops! Good thing Canada isn't on that list. Looks like violent crime is and has been trending down since the peak in the 1970s. Violent crime involving weapons of any sort is down too. Our criminals aren't using knives or bats any more frequently than firearms just because we have gun control. The very fact that violent crime is trending down as a whole undermines your assumption.
 
2013-04-23 05:24:44 PM
CPennypacker:I did address your point. "Fixing the crazies" is a canard. It'll be easier to repeal the second amendment entirely than it will be to pass mental health medical reform so intensive and comprehensive that we fix all the crazies. Let's work on improving mental healthcare in this country and along the way we can keep people who are unstable from owning dangerous weaponry.

That wasn't so difficult, was it?

I don't have a problem with "keep people who are unstable from owning dangerous weaponry" as long as said proposals don't stop/infringe on anyone else's right to own dangerous weapons.

I don't see anyone submitting proposals that actually would do that.
 
2013-04-23 05:25:18 PM

Mouldy Squid: Jegred2:
If you look at the stats I'd guess that in most of these similar countries that have less guns that the violent crime just shifted from guns to other types. Gun grabbers don't care about violent crime unless it involves a gun.

Whoops! Good thing Canada isn't on that list. Looks like violent crime is and has been trending down since the peak in the 1970s. Violent crime involving weapons of any sort is down too. Our criminals aren't using knives or bats any more frequently than firearms just because we have gun control. The very fact that violent crime is trending down as a whole undermines your assumption.


I should have added this too.

FTFA:
"Long-term decline in firearm-related homicides due to lower use of rifles or shotgunsPolice reported 190 homicides that were committed with a firearm in 2006, 33 fewer than the previous year. Although there have been annual fluctuations, the rate of firearm-related homicides has remained relatively stable over the past decade.

The rate of homicide committed with a firearm declined throughout most of the 1970s, 1980s and 1990s. As a result, the rate in 2006 was about half of what it was 30 years earlier.

This decline is largely attributable to an 86% decrease in the rate of homicide involving rifles or shotguns between 1975 and 2006. The rate of homicide involving handguns remained relatively stable over this period.

The use of handguns surpassed rifles or shotguns for the first time in 1991. By 2006, three times as many victims were killed with a handgun than with a rifle or shotgun.

Prior to 1985, shootings were much more common than stabbings. Since then, shootings and stabbings have each accounted for about one-third of all homicides annually."


It should be noted that the period of greatest decline co-incides with the period during changes to our Firearms Act, specifically when we started to regulate firearms a bit more seriously. Things like licensing, required firearms training as a prerequisite for ownership, requiring valid licenses for ammunition purchases, magazine capacity limits.
 
2013-04-23 05:31:52 PM
Mouldy Squid:
It should be noted that the period of greatest decline co-incides with the period during changes to our Firearms Act, specifically when we started to regulate firearms a bit more seriously. Things like licensing, required firearms training as a prerequis ...

Mexico has laws much stricter, and murder rates off the charts.

Maybe the difference has more to do with Canada's more affluent population, good healthcare, and robust economy.
 
2013-04-23 05:43:32 PM

BayouOtter: Mouldy Squid:
It should be noted that the period of greatest decline co-incides with the period during changes to our Firearms Act, specifically when we started to regulate firearms a bit more seriously. Things like licensing, required firearms training as a prerequis ...

Mexico has laws much stricter, and murder rates off the charts.

Maybe the difference has more to do with Canada's more affluent population, good healthcare, and robust economy.


Yes there is a difference between the murder rates in Canada and Mexico, and yes, affluence and robust economy have an effect on that, however, those factors do not explain why our gun crime decreased during periods of tighter regulation. Canada was in a recession throughout much of the late 70s and 80s, and yet gun crime dropped, and has been dropping steadily since.

Besides, Mexico is hardly an affluent Western Nation like the ones that were quoted above. Now if someplace like Sweden had a higher homicide rate with stricter firearms laws than Canada you might have a point. I know Mexico is on the list, but it's the outlier, not the norm. Finland, Sweden, Switzerland, France, Norway.

The fact remains that I have provided actual evidence about gun regulation and the reduction in gun crime in an affluent western nation that contradicts what <a target="_blank" data-cke-saved-href="<a href=" href="<a href=" http:="" www.fark.com="" users="" jegred2"="">Jegred2 was "guessing" about.
 
2013-04-23 05:51:12 PM

Mouldy Squid: BayouOtter: Mouldy Squid:
It should be noted that the period of greatest decline co-incides with the period during changes to our Firearms Act, specifically when we started to regulate firearms a bit more seriously. Things like licensing, required firearms training as a prerequis ...

Mexico has laws much stricter, and murder rates off the charts.

Maybe the difference has more to do with Canada's more affluent population, good healthcare, and robust economy.

Yes there is a difference between the murder rates in Canada and Mexico, and yes, affluence and robust economy have an effect on that, however, those factors do not explain why our gun crime decreased during periods of tighter regulation. Canada was in a recession throughout much of the late 70s and 80s, and yet gun crime dropped, and has been dropping steadily since.

Besides, Mexico is hardly an affluent Western Nation like the ones that were quoted above. Now if someplace like Sweden had a higher homicide rate with stricter firearms laws than Canada you might have a point. I know Mexico is on the list, but it's the outlier, not the norm. Finland, Sweden, Switzerland, France, Norway.

The fact remains that I have provided actual evidence about gun regulation and the reduction in gun crime in an affluent western nation that contradicts what Jegred2 was "guessing" about.


And I should have had this quote in there too:

"Canada's 2006 firearm homicide rate was nearly six times lower than the United States. But it was about three times higher than the rate in Australia and six times higher than in England and Wales. The rate of non-firearm homicide was fairly similar in all four countries. "

That provides the context you are wanting to apply to Canada and Mexico. When we compare Canada to the United States, it is clear that our firearm homicide rate is lower. When we compare Canada to countries that are even more similar such as Australia (very strict gun control) and England and Wales (even stricter gun control), our firearms homicide rate is higher. The real kicker is that non-firearms homicides are about the same for all four countries. This is certainly strong evidence that tighter gun control leads to fewer firearms homicides.
 
2013-04-23 05:52:37 PM

Zeno-25: optimistic_cynic: Jim_Callahan: optimistic_cynic: True but even in competition the object is do destroy the object you're shooting at whether it be a paper target or clay pigeons, it is still a tool for destruction. I would say the same for for archery as well.

/likes guns but does support stronger background checks

By that logic, boiling things in pressurized oil isn't exactly good for them, or constructive...

Perhaps, but I'm still pretty sure that guns were originally designed for killing and killing only as opposed to say a knife that has both utility and killing purposes.

Guns aren't designed to kill people, they're designed to propel a projectile towards a target accurately. If guns were designed for killing people, target practice or hunting would be a misuse of the gun. By that line offor logic, every shot fired that didn't kill someone would be a misuse of a firearm.

The "guns are designed for killing people" line is just a bunch of emotional hyperbole.


False. They are designed for killing people and tasty animals.  Anything else is ignoring their primary function.
 
2013-04-23 05:56:19 PM

doglover: That headline accurately represents the anit-gun logic of the AWB.


But it still does nothing to explain why we shouldn't strengthen background checks though.
 
2013-04-23 06:02:30 PM

Tamater: Late to the party, but, can we have a conversation on WHY high-capacity magazines should be banned?

In a mass shooting situation, the shooter only has, at best, a few seconds to unload into a crowd of people as they start running for their lives.

If the shooter has to switch guns or reload, it gives the victims a few seconds to get further away and closer to safety.

Can anyone make an argument for why they would NEED a high-capacity magazine? (aside from "because freedom".....because you don't have the freedom to drive drunk at 200MPH or to get naked in Times Square and helicopter your dick around)


30-round magazine's are standard size for the ar-15.

Do you NEED a car?
 
2013-04-23 06:06:52 PM

Mouldy Squid: BayouOtter: Mouldy Squid:
It should be noted that the period of greatest decline co-incides with the period during changes to our Firearms Act, specifically when we started to regulate firearms a bit more seriously. Things like licensing, required firearms training as a prerequis ...

Mexico has laws much stricter, and murder rates off the charts.

Maybe the difference has more to do with Canada's more affluent population, good healthcare, and robust economy.

Yes there is a difference between the murder rates in Canada and Mexico, and yes, affluence and robust economy have an effect on that, however, those factors do not explain why our gun crime decreased during periods of tighter regulation. Canada was in a recession throughout much of the late 70s and 80s, and yet gun crime dropped, and has been dropping steadily since.

Besides, Mexico is hardly an affluent Western Nation like the ones that were quoted above. Now if someplace like Sweden had a higher homicide rate with stricter firearms laws than Canada you might have a point. I know Mexico is on the list, but it's the outlier, not the norm. Finland, Sweden, Switzerland, France, Norway.

The fact remains that I have provided actual evidence about gun regulation and the reduction in gun crime in an affluent western nation that contradicts what <a target="_blank" data-cke-saved-href="<a href=" href="<a href=" http:="" www.fark.com="" users="" jegred2"="">Jegred2 was "guessing" about.


I was never arguing that gun crime didn't decrease, just that as gun crime went down other types of violent crime went up. Meaning that people that want to heavily regulate guns don't care about violent crime as long as it doesn't involve a gun.
 
2013-04-23 06:13:06 PM

Jegred2: Mouldy Squid: BayouOtter: Mouldy Squid:
It should be noted that the period of greatest decline co-incides with the period during changes to our Firearms Act, specifically when we started to regulate firearms a bit more seriously. Things like licensing, required firearms training as a prerequis ...

Mexico has laws much stricter, and murder rates off the charts.

Maybe the difference has more to do with Canada's more affluent population, good healthcare, and robust economy.

Yes there is a difference between the murder rates in Canada and Mexico, and yes, affluence and robust economy have an effect on that, however, those factors do not explain why our gun crime decreased during periods of tighter regulation. Canada was in a recession throughout much of the late 70s and 80s, and yet gun crime dropped, and has been dropping steadily since.

Besides, Mexico is hardly an affluent Western Nation like the ones that were quoted above. Now if someplace like Sweden had a higher homicide rate with stricter firearms laws than Canada you might have a point. I know Mexico is on the list, but it's the outlier, not the norm. Finland, Sweden, Switzerland, France, Norway.

The fact remains that I have provided actual evidence about gun regulation and the reduction in gun crime in an affluent western nation that contradicts what <a target="_blank" data-cke-saved-href="<a href=" href="<a href=" http:="" www.fark.com="" users="" jegred2"="">Jegred2 was "guessing" about.

I was never arguing that gun crime didn't decrease, just that as gun crime went down other types of violent crime went up. Meaning that people that want to heavily regulate guns don't care about violent crime as long as it doesn't involve a gun.


Fair enough. However if you look a couple of posts above you will see that in a study comparing the US, Canada, Australia, England and Wales, the non-firearms homicide did not, and does not, increase because of stricter gun control. The very fact the non-firearms homicide rate is similar between countries with widely varying gun control, but similar culture, economics and affluence, shows that your "guess" is incorrect.
 
2013-04-23 06:29:14 PM
well, if a kid buys 500 pressure cookers from target [as permissible with ammo], we'll let you know.
 
2013-04-23 06:31:25 PM
(and) guns were of course crucial for defense of the homefront 200 years ago. Now we have robotic pressure cookers that can bring a mean meal right to your doorstep, what are these rednecks going to do about it? Act like muslins firing their guns in the air and shouting?

Morons.
 
m00
2013-04-23 10:02:23 PM
damn, too bad I'm late to this party.
 
2013-04-24 01:52:21 AM

Jegred2: Tamater: Late to the party, but, can we have a conversation on WHY high-capacity magazines should be banned?

In a mass shooting situation, the shooter only has, at best, a few seconds to unload into a crowd of people as they start running for their lives.

If the shooter has to switch guns or reload, it gives the victims a few seconds to get further away and closer to safety.

Can anyone make an argument for why they would NEED a high-capacity magazine? (aside from "because freedom".....because you don't have the freedom to drive drunk at 200MPH or to get naked in Times Square and helicopter your dick around)

30-round magazine's are standard size for the ar-15.

Do you NEED a car?


Then banning the AR-15 is worthwhile.

Yes, I need my car to get to work to provide myself with income upon which to live. I do acknowledge that there rules and restrictions I must follow to continue to own and use my car. I don't begrudge these rules as they are for my safety and the safety of others.

Why not have rules and restrictions on guns, even if you "need" them?

I have no problem with guns. Never owned one and probably never will. Never felt I needed one either.

Then again, I'm not a pants-shiatting coward like so many gun nuts are.
 
2013-04-24 03:18:58 AM

justtray: It's just a crazy coincidence that basically every mass shooter over the last year has used an AR-15. It has nothing to do with the effectiveness of murdering people. A knife would have had the same impact in all those cases.


Oh, come now, you should know that statistically you're going to have streaks. Do you think there's something special about the AR-15 in the last year that has made it unusually more capable than it has been in the previous 40?
 
2013-04-24 09:01:49 AM
I used to work in a frozen food factory, wherein they had a pressure-cooker of mass destruction, capable of holding thousands of gallons at a time.
 
2013-04-24 09:09:04 AM
The AR-15 doesn't even begin to put a scratch in the record of killings the AK-47 holds.
 
2013-04-24 11:57:30 AM

HAMMERTOE: I used to work in a frozen food factory, wherein they had a pressure-cooker of mass destruction, capable of holding thousands of gallons at a time.


So you guys didn't have the technology to miniaturize it and put it in a man-portable delivery platform, the so-called briefcase bomb?
 
Displayed 270 of 270 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report